Wonder schreef op 23 mei 2014 20:26:
margolismatt.com/2014/03/Sapphire, je beweert stellig dat GTAT Furnaces kan verkopen aan andere toeleveranciers van saffier. Ook als dit saffier wordt gebruikt voor smartphones. Ik betwijfel dit.
According to the contract GTAT cannot enter into performing the “same” or “similar Development Services in the Consumer Electronic Field” while performing “Development Services for Apple, and for 3 years following the date that GTAT ceases to perform the Development Services for Apple”. Development Services definition seems to be very specific and I would correlate this to mean that GT cannot enter into a materials agreement to grow sapphire and develop sapphire materials for consumer electronics while performing the same service for Apple or until 3 years after GT ceases to grow sapphire and develop sapphire materials for Apple.
The next part of the exclusivity contract language may require some legal interpretation. In addition to restricting GT’s ability to grow sapphire materials for the Consumer Electronic Field the contract also states GT cannot “assist, enable or in any way facilitate any other person or party in its provision of the same or similar Development Services for any other person or party”. This could be interpreted to mean that
GT cannot sell any ASF sapphire growth furnaces that could land in consumer electronic products, which means that GT’s ASF furnaces could only be sold for LED purposes. Another interpretation on the other end of the spectrum is that GT simply cannot enter into a sapphire materials contract similar to Apple within the Consumer Electronic Field. The key words to digest in the second part of the exclusivity contract language are “assist, enable and facilitate”. When GT sells a ASF furnace to a customer they do go to the customer site and train the customer to help them maximize their results using GT’s equipment so I’m not sure where to draw the appropriate line. I’m curious what everyone else thinks?