Remember, Waymo vs Uber involving Levandowski’s case, wherein it was alleged that Levandowski stole trade secrets to then being used by Uber via acquired firm Otto, that Levandowski started, with all its IP assets, ending up Levandowski’s sentencing, whereas Uber-Waymo signing non-disclosed settlement agreement!
But how’s this analogy can be applicable in the Apple’s watch dilemma case? Because herein too, Masimo accused Apple of hiring its employees (poaching), who/which may’ve helped in making its pulse oximetry technology to incorporate in Apple’s watch, which Masimo considered as IP theft, the case, that resulted in the ban of Apple’s watch in the US presently, which further, Masimo considered as vindication.
Now, in both the above scenarios, an earlier employee(s) was/were involved in building technology for the company that hired/poached them.
Apple could’ve simply bought Masimo. And honestly, such watches only became famous because of Covid Pandemic, as everyone was asked to keep measuring their digital vitals. And as contended by Masimo these are hardware related patents, thus, software upgrade won’t fix this.
In one of my previous blogs, I’ve written about Patents vs Trade Secrets, and how they differed. And citing the example of Theranos, I’ve also contended that, NDA’s signed w.r.t. trade secrets should become void/voidable/void-ab-initio if in case: the so called trade secrets never existed, or, were mere abstract hypothesis, or, worked against the law, or, itself were result of the infringements. In this case, it seems they were valid trade secrets. 😊
©
Pranav Chaturvedi
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment