Point 6:
Much of the key intellectual property, including the board and much of the mechanicals, is owned by Pegatron, the manufacturing arm of Asus.
Point 7:
The entire blueprint of the device was created by me.
I don't exactly understand what he means by this. He created the blue print but someone else owns the IP? And what exactly is a blue print, in this case? Just saying what the device needs to do/look? Isn't that too easy to do?
Since Pegatron is an Asus subsidiary, the most reasonable interpretation is that they've started out with motherboard designs or other IP licensed from Pegatron/Asus and modified that to suit the device.
Few people would start out with a blank slate when most large potential manufacturing partners can offer decent starting points that are well suited for their manufacturing process (using components they have large volume discounts on; designs that fit their tooling perfectly etc.)
But presumably that is only a small part of the IP for the device, and TC are arguing they own the rights to some or all of the remaining IP.
From what I experienced of ODM in China, I'd guess that Pegatron not only provides the starting point but also do all the designs of the specific motherboard, the plastic outfit, pretty much all the hardware. The guess is reasonable because from what FG claims, they put much resources on the OS development, thus, for a small startup, it is impossible for them to develop the motherboard and the whole industry design (even they have the ability to hand build a prototype).
Point 7: The entire blueprint of the device was created by me.
I don't exactly understand what he means by this. He created the blue print but someone else owns the IP? And what exactly is a blue print, in this case? Just saying what the device needs to do/look? Isn't that too easy to do?