4 ms·

Nowhere in the article does the author prove his request triggered Waymo’s lawsuit. Google's own explanation for their lawsuit is at odds author's claim. For a

by Pilfer 10y ago

Nowhere in the article does the author prove his request triggered Waymo’s lawsuit. Google's own explanation for their lawsuit is at odds author's claim. For a refresher, Google said https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and-uber-86f4f98902a1 https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-... Recently, we [Google] received an unexpected email. One of our suppliers specializing in LiDAR components sent us an attachment (apparently inadvertently) of machine drawings of what was purported to be Uber’s LiDAR circuit board — except its design bore a striking resemblance to Waymo’s unique LiDAR design. It's clear Google's statement contradicts the author's premise. The author can claim whatever he wants but to me this reads like a baseless puff piece.

pwg 10y ago
About 10 paragraphs down is this paragraph: > After reading Waymo’s complaint, I asked the Nevada agencies for a copy of the Alphabet company’s request. The DMV called me back in confusion. Nevada had never received an Open Records Act request directly from Waymo, nor from any other Alphabet company. What the agency had received was a request from an attorney, who did not provide an affiliation, requesting duplicate documents from my request last fall — from when I was investigating Otto and Uber. I had been chasing my own tail.
- hugelgupf 10y ago
  ...So what? This might be true, but it still means that an attorney (seemingly?) acting on behalf of Alphabet/Waymo seems to have requested the records. This doesn't seem to contradict the document they filed with the court.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > ...So what? So it seems Waymo literally just requested a duplicate of the author's own request, on which the author had based their previous reporting. Which doesn't require much effort to infer that Waymo was just checking if the author's previous reporting was actually truthful and possibly looking for some more details in the same document the author had previously brought to light in their reporting, and that was sufficient to finally launch their legal action.
    - eli 10y ago
      Making a duplicate request is also a good trick to get an answer faster since the agency already has the records prepared
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      "and that was sufficient to finally launch their legal action." Right,except nowhere does any of this actually prove or imply that. In fact, he asked waymo: "When I checked in with Waymo about this turn of events, the company said only that its Nevada records request was to investigate Otto’s lidar. It did not comment on my role in uncovering the information they needed." IE they refused to confirm the author's ego-driven search to prove he's actually important.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        What incentive do they have to say yes, if it was?
- mcguire 10y ago
  Further: "The Alphabet company had been hunting for evidence that its patented and secret lidar technology was being used by Uber. “Waymo received such confirmation in response to a public records request it made to the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development and Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV] on February 3,” reads the complaint." Also, this article mentions the email attachment.

by Pilfer 10y ago

pwg 10y ago

About 10 paragraphs down is this paragraph: > After reading Waymo’s complaint, I asked the Nevada agencies for a copy of the Alphabet company’s request. The DMV called me back in confusion. Nevada had never received an Open Records Act request directly from Waymo, nor from any other Alphabet company. What the agency had received was a request from an attorney, who did not provide an affiliation, requesting duplicate documents from my request last fall — from when I was investigating Otto and Uber. I had been chasing my own tail.

hugelgupf 10y ago
...So what? This might be true, but it still means that an attorney (seemingly?) acting on behalf of Alphabet/Waymo seems to have requested the records. This doesn't seem to contradict the document they filed with the court.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > ...So what? So it seems Waymo literally just requested a duplicate of the author's own request, on which the author had based their previous reporting. Which doesn't require much effort to infer that Waymo was just checking if the author's previous reporting was actually truthful and possibly looking for some more details in the same document the author had previously brought to light in their reporting, and that was sufficient to finally launch their legal action.
  - eli 10y ago
    Making a duplicate request is also a good trick to get an answer faster since the agency already has the records prepared
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    "and that was sufficient to finally launch their legal action." Right,except nowhere does any of this actually prove or imply that. In fact, he asked waymo: "When I checked in with Waymo about this turn of events, the company said only that its Nevada records request was to investigate Otto’s lidar. It did not comment on my role in uncovering the information they needed." IE they refused to confirm the author's ego-driven search to prove he's actually important.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      What incentive do they have to say yes, if it was?
mcguire 10y ago
Further: "The Alphabet company had been hunting for evidence that its patented and secret lidar technology was being used by Uber. “Waymo received such confirmation in response to a public records request it made to the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development and Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV] on February 3,” reads the complaint." Also, this article mentions the email attachment.