4 ms·

For all the noise and excitement at the start of these clashes, don't they usually get settled with a licensing agreement that both sides can live with? Someti

by GCA10 10y ago

For all the noise and excitement at the start of these clashes, don't they usually get settled with a licensing agreement that both sides can live with? Sometimes we also see a medium-sized payment (not ruinous) to address the allegedly bad conduct. That usually gets paired with some lawyer-like phrases that amount to a blend of quasi-apology and face-saving evasions. It's still an interesting suit. But after Apple/Samsung, Oracle/SAP and many others, it's hard to expect that the eventual resolution lives up to the pre-trial buildup.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago
I don't imagine there'll be an amicable end to both parties. What the lawsuit is describing is tantamount to blatant theft. This wasn't just reverse engineered. I imagine someone might go to prison if Alphabet wins.
- GCA10 10y ago
  The Oracle/SAP case covered the exact same territory, with allegations of illegal downloads of proprietary software as part of a theft-like scheme. Details are here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-sap-se-settlement-idUSKCN0IX2RJ20141113 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-sap-se-settlement-i... The civil case was filed in 2007, reached its high-water mark with a jury verdict in 2010 of $1.3 billion in damages, and after a great deal of appeals-court maneuvering, ultimately was settled in 2014 for $356 million in damages. A separate criminal case was settled for $20 million in 2011. If this Huffington Post article has it right, no individuals were charged. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/oracle-sap-settlement_n_959817.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/oracle-sap-settleme...
  - mbesto 10y ago
    The biggest difference here is the hype and attention associated with self-driving cars. TomorrowNow was basically caught stealing Oracle manuals to provide the same service as Oracle but at a lower cost. The person who "wins" the self-driving market on the other hand potentially may be the purveyor of a business and an industry that is set to upend an industry that absolutely dwarfs "Oracle maintenance contracts". Stakes are much higher.
techthroway443 10y ago
Why would Uber be awarded licensing terms they could "live with" for code they (allegedly) outright stole from a competitor?
- tannhauser23 10y ago
  Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
  - cma 10y ago
    But if Google won a huge judgement they would outright own the company and not just be an investor.
    - GCA10 10y ago
      They'd own a broken company. Bear in mind that this sort of litigation can run five to ten years if you let the lawyers on both sides wrestle to their hearts' content. It becomes all consuming. Executives spend much of their time preparing for depositions, tussling about what ambiguous documents mean, tussling about what obvious documents might mean if you try hard to misinterpet them, etc. It's no fun to be working in such an environment. Everyone who can afford to get out, gets out.
      - chx 10y ago
        > tussling about what obvious documents might mean if you try hard to misinterpet them, In this case, it really sees this is cut high and dry. We will see but this really looks bad.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      Or they could just buy Uber. The thing is they likely wouldn't want to own Uber, especially considering it's just burning through mega-cash.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nlh 10y ago
Because I think in this case, it's not just about money (per se), copying a public design, or patent-related technicalities ("we had a patent on that very generic thing!"). This one is about bad-faith theft. Google didn't sue Uber because they want to extract some $ from them, they sued because they feel their hard work was literally stolen by a bad-faith actor who is now competing against them with their own work. Neither party cares about an extra billion or two in either direction, so I doubt we'll see a "token" settlement for that amount.
- londons_explore 10y ago
  Divisions in a company are fairly tightly budgeted. If Waymo can sue Uber and get $5b, that might keep them away from the prying eyes of the ruthless shareholders looking to cut unprofitable side projects.
  - obstinate 10y ago
    The only shareholders at Google with a meaningful vote are Larry and Sergey. I don't think they're likely to be fooled by something like a lawsuit win. If they want to cut side-projects, they can. If they don't, there's nothing in the financials that would compel them to at this time.

by GCA10 10y ago

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

I don't imagine there'll be an amicable end to both parties. What the lawsuit is describing is tantamount to blatant theft. This wasn't just reverse engineered. I imagine someone might go to prison if Alphabet wins.

GCA10 10y ago
The Oracle/SAP case covered the exact same territory, with allegations of illegal downloads of proprietary software as part of a theft-like scheme. Details are here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-sap-se-settlement-idUSKCN0IX2RJ20141113 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-sap-se-settlement-i... The civil case was filed in 2007, reached its high-water mark with a jury verdict in 2010 of $1.3 billion in damages, and after a great deal of appeals-court maneuvering, ultimately was settled in 2014 for $356 million in damages. A separate criminal case was settled for $20 million in 2011. If this Huffington Post article has it right, no individuals were charged. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/oracle-sap-settlement_n_959817.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/oracle-sap-settleme...
- mbesto 10y ago
  The biggest difference here is the hype and attention associated with self-driving cars. TomorrowNow was basically caught stealing Oracle manuals to provide the same service as Oracle but at a lower cost. The person who "wins" the self-driving market on the other hand potentially may be the purveyor of a business and an industry that is set to upend an industry that absolutely dwarfs "Oracle maintenance contracts". Stakes are much higher.

techthroway443 10y ago

Why would Uber be awarded licensing terms they could "live with" for code they (allegedly) outright stole from a competitor?

tannhauser23 10y ago
Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
- cma 10y ago
  But if Google won a huge judgement they would outright own the company and not just be an investor.
  - GCA10 10y ago
    They'd own a broken company. Bear in mind that this sort of litigation can run five to ten years if you let the lawyers on both sides wrestle to their hearts' content. It becomes all consuming. Executives spend much of their time preparing for depositions, tussling about what ambiguous documents mean, tussling about what obvious documents might mean if you try hard to misinterpet them, etc. It's no fun to be working in such an environment. Everyone who can afford to get out, gets out.
    - chx 10y ago
      > tussling about what obvious documents might mean if you try hard to misinterpet them, In this case, it really sees this is cut high and dry. We will see but this really looks bad.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Or they could just buy Uber. The thing is they likely wouldn't want to own Uber, especially considering it's just burning through mega-cash.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nlh 10y ago

Because I think in this case, it's not just about money (per se), copying a public design, or patent-related technicalities ("we had a patent on that very generic thing!"). This one is about bad-faith theft. Google didn't sue Uber because they want to extract some $ from them, they sued because they feel their hard work was literally stolen by a bad-faith actor who is now competing against them with their own work. Neither party cares about an extra billion or two in either direction, so I doubt we'll see a "token" settlement for that amount.

londons_explore 10y ago
Divisions in a company are fairly tightly budgeted. If Waymo can sue Uber and get $5b, that might keep them away from the prying eyes of the ruthless shareholders looking to cut unprofitable side projects.
- obstinate 10y ago
  The only shareholders at Google with a meaningful vote are Larry and Sergey. I don't think they're likely to be fooled by something like a lawsuit win. If they want to cut side-projects, they can. If they don't, there's nothing in the financials that would compel them to at this time.