It’s odd how some people can’t see that MB would use different neuromorphic solutions for different purposes. Are they using Loihi2 for in-cabin voice recognition? No? Then what’s the issue? While nothing’s guaranteed, I’m hopeful Akida passes the EQXX test and becomes the preferred choice for their "Hey Mercedes" voice control system (which is 5–10 times more efficient than conventional setups). If not, they’ve either scrapped the idea, chosen another solution, or developed it in-house. Until we know, I’ll stay cautiously optimistic. Perhaps it’s a happy coincidence Dr. Tony Lewis was an adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo last year.
@TomAndJerry Back in 2020, BrainChip teamed up with Ford to test out Akida's System-on-Chip for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and Autonomous Vehicles. But as of today, neither company lists the other as a partner, so it's safe to say the collaboration was just a trial phase and didn’t turn into a formal partnership. Can't win 'em all and it's part of the game we play.
The EQXX is a concept car and concept cars do not go into production, but rather they take components of the vehicle and integrate them into the upcoming line of vehicles. They're test cars. Here's hoping Brainchips in-cabin voice recognition made the cut.
There are legal and ethical considerations when it comes to advertising logos as partnerships. As long as Brainchip is still advertising Mercedes as a partner, that’s good enough for me. See below:
*If Mercedes-Benz has decided not to continue working with BrainChip, but BrainChip continues to use their logo on its website, this could be problematic and potentially unethical, even if Mercedes previously used BrainChip's product.
Ethical and Practical Concerns:
Implied Ongoing Partnership:
- Displaying Mercedes' logo without clarification may mislead stakeholders into believing there is a current partnership or collaboration, which would not be accurate if the relationship has ended.
Lack of Transparency:
- Ethical business practices require transparency. If the partnership has concluded, continuing to display the logo without context could be seen as intentionally withholding relevant information.
Potential Brand Misuse:
- Mercedes-Benz might object to its logo being used in a way that implies endorsement or a relationship that no longer exists. This could lead to reputational damage or even legal action for trademark misuse.
Investor and Market Trust:
- Companies must be careful about how they present partnerships, especially in industries like technology where partnerships influence investor sentiment. Misrepresentation, even if not intentional, could harm trust.
When It’s Acceptable:
If BrainChip clarifies on their website that the logo reflects a past collaboration (e.g., "Previously partnered with Mercedes-Benz on the Vision EQXX concept car"), this could be ethically acceptable. Providing clear and honest context ensures stakeholders are not misled.
Consequences of Misrepresentation:
- Legal Risks: Trademark infringement or breach of partnership terms. Unauthorized use of Mercedes-Benz logo or name could result in legal action for trademark infringement or defamation. Mercedes-Benz would also want to protect its brand integrity and avoid association with claims it no longer endorses.
- Reputational Damage: Partnerships, especially with major corporations like Mercedes, are built on trust and mutual understanding. Misusing Mercedes's logo or name without an active agreement could damage relationships and harm BrainChip’s reputation.
- Investor Fallout: Risking trust and goodwill in the market.
Best Practice:
If Mercedes-Benz is no longer a partner, BrainChip should:
- Remove the logo from their website unless explicitly permitted by Mercedes-Benz.
- Reference the collaboration in text form with clear disclaimers about its historical nature.
This approach balances transparency and respect for intellectual property, ensuring ethical business conduct.
*GPT4o
(20min delay)