2 ms·

Sure, but having to do so is pretty much inevitable. At best, Uber was fighting a short-term delaying action with a blatantly untenable interpretation of what c

Sure, but having to do so is pretty much inevitable. At best, Uber was fighting a short-term delaying action with a blatantly untenable interpretation of what constitutes an autonomous vehicle (they've also repeatedly contradicted it with their marketing, press coverage and releases, and even Levandowski's own emails from the article). Eventually, they'd have lost and had to file anyhow. All they accomplished was guaranteeing that Uber filings will likely receive additional attention in the future. It's Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. My only question is if there's a Sancho Panza at Uber to take note.

snarf 10y ago
Right, but it's possible (and I would say likely) that their self-driving program is behind everyone else and their disengagement rate is atrociously high, which is why they would go to great lengths to delay reporting this information and happily decamped to Arizona, which doesn't require disengagement reports, while they try to catch up by whatever means they can. According to NYT reporting, their software failed to identify six traffic lights during the brief time they were testing in SF, which suggests they are pretty far behind. Kalanick has correctly identified self-driving technology as an existential threat to Uber, and given their lofty valuation, they absolutely cannot afford to be perceived as being behind in this area.