myAsx – look at slide 9 in the presentation and you
won’t see a picture of the Apple logo on that picture of the BrainChip. That would be asking for trouble. But you will see the Apple logo, along with other logos, on the battery pack pictured on slide 19. That’s okay, because that part of the presentation is just talking about how the BrainChip could one day, if successful, be incorporated into smartphone technology as a co-processor or in some other way.
This does not paint Apple in any negative light; it does not damage their brand or reputation. The presentation material is too broad and too vague to have any legal implications. If however, slide 8 showed the Apple logo and slide 9 also showed the Apple logo and slide 19 mentioned Apple by name more than once then the company would be drifting very close to a legal stoush with Apple. Because that amount of Apple logo visibility could create a perception - that Apple is endorsing BrainChip technology.
The company uses the Apple logo in a kind of incidental contextual way that does not breach any Apple or general trademark laws or guidelines etc. And remember, Apple’s guidelines are written in the framework of actual laws covering to the use of company trademarks. Apple’s trademark guidelines are not the law nor are they above the law. See
http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkUseFactSheet.aspx
So I don’t think this
particular presentation is for the Apples of the world. And it has some credibility issues imo.
On slide 23, the company states that
‘This is a global opportunity, we are at an advanced stage of commercial development, and we’d love to have you on board.’
Yet, on slide 19 they say they
‘Expect’ that they will have
‘Proof’ that SNAP technology works to scale by 1qtr 2016, with another milestone measured vaguely as
‘Beyond’ …
Then on slide 20 of the presentation, they say
‘We have 1 granted patent and five patents pending.’ And on slide 21
‘We plan to build a broad portfolio of global patents.’
They have no
global patents for their SNAP technology, which they have yet to
prove works at scale. And securing global patents and developing a commercially proven and viable technology can take years. That could be moved along quickly with the right partners, I do believe that. But do you really think Apple is interested in investing in this company at this stage in its life? They currently don’t even have a decent CEO who understands how to market a ‘disruptive’ technology to the public let alone other technology companies. It's a start-up with a penny-dreadful mining company culture, imo. A good tech CEO could change that culture.
I have listened to Peter van der Made on Irish radio. He sounds like a decent chap and one who really believes that he has in his hands the solution to make AI a reality. I hope he has. But he also comes across to me as a bit of an outsider in an industry dominated by young highly qualified and highly resourced experts in the field. Frankly, I don’t hear anyone in the field talking about Peter van der Made or his SNAP technology. Maybe one day he’ll show ‘em. If he does, this company will be worth billions.
All imo.
(20min delay)