“Company 2” has to be Qualcomm. Or am I misreading this? The only reason I think I’m misreading is because it’s so obviously Qualcomm that it seems silly for the article to call it “company 2”.
Only a lawyer could write this with a straight face
Keep reading.
It’s either extreme incompetence or cheeky disclosure while also technically not naming the company.
Redactions / aliases are sometimes quite transparent. When policy dictates that it must happen they do it even when it is not hard to puzzle out who the redaction / alias hides.
There is the famous interview where the NTSB was interviewing an expert in relation to the Oceangate tragedy. The expert's name was redacted, but he was described as "Co-Designer / Pilot of the Deepsea Challenger" which is already quite a specific thing. Not a lot of people can claim that. And then the interview started like this:
Q: So how did you get yourself started into submersible operations? <redacted>: Well, I'm sure you are familiar with my film Titanic.
I'm leaving the solution as an exercise for the reader. But it is a real world "Lisa S. No, that's too obvious. Uh, let's say L. Simpson." situation.