5 ms·

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.
    - londons_explore 10y ago
      Google has mega-cash, and is happy to burn through it if long term returns look plausible.
      - xapata 10y ago
        Perhaps even enough cash to create the dominant ride hail company from scratch. Coca-cola was about to buy Gatorate for $13B. Buffett squashed the deal at the 11th hour and Pepsi paid $14B. Buffett presumably thought that Coca-cola could use the $13B to make its own sports drink. It's still not clear which company was wiser.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    What do you mean by that? Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay? Or do you mean indirectly, like, Uber gets found liable for say $10bn, and Google offers isntead to buy a controlling share of Uber and then forgive the liability?
    - objclxt 10y ago
      > Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay? Sure, although that's an extremely unlikely outcome. Normally the company would be liquidated to pay the judgment (this is basically what happened in Bollea (Hogan) v Gawker - Gawker couldn't afford the damages, so had to declare bankruptcy and sell itself to pay for them).
      - londons_explore 10y ago
        It amounts to the same thing though - when the company gets liquidated, Google can buy all the assets and continue to operate the business, knowing that all the money they pay will be going right back into their own pockets. Obviously, it runs the risk someone else will come along and buy the company instead, but any other buyer will have significant ongoing IP concerns by using google tech vs re-engineering stuff. Hence, Google will probably outbid other buyers since the company has more utility to them than to others.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Google Ventures owns only 6% of Uber. If they can drag this out sufficently, then Uber cannot IPO, will have burnt all their cash - and the whole company will be at the mercy of their biggest creditor who just got awarded a billion-dollar penalty payment.
  - GCA10 10y ago
    The math still doesn't work. Right now 6% of Uber is worth about $4 billion, if you believe the latest venture valuation. (Make adjustments as you see fit.) If this is litigated until Uber collapses in a heap of dust, Google ends up owning 100% of a heap of dust. No money left to pay off the judgment. Most of the talent is gone, and the folks that remain are hardly motivated to rebuild the business for their new masters. The Napster mess is instructive. The brand might live on, but no one gets rich in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown
    - michaelt 10y ago
      The math still doesn't work. If the article's predictions come true, gaining control of Uber isn't Google's only motivation. They have a secondary motivation: To set a precedent that serves as an example to other people who have the opportunity to sell or buy their trade secrets. If there's a $680 million prize for a successful theft, and people think the chances of being caught are low, you'll need a big penalty to act as an effective deterrent.
      - chx 10y ago
        > If there's a $680 million prize for a successful theft, and people think the chances of being caught are low, you'll need a big penalty to act as an effective deterrent. The problem here is the prize. It's not a paltry few hundred millions. Just in the USA the yearly car sales are above 500 billion and we are talking about disrupting that big time. Really, really big time. It is not unreasonable to think that private car ownership will become deprecated in 20-30 years. Do you think Google won't be happy to burn the $260M they invested in Uber and a hundred more for lawyers over the years to make sure Uber doesn't get an illicit advantage when the time comes of who will be the doorkeeper? Can you imagine -- and I know Google can -- the possibilities of an ad company selling all the cars there is? Or the software therein which amounts to the same. Your self driving taxi today is free you just need to listen / watch / immerse / whatever happens by then to ads enroute. You can't even count the trillions they would make.
- techthroway443 10y ago
  I did not know they invest in Uber! That makes this even more interesting.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  GV, of Alphabet, is the investor in Uber. They own 1.8 million series C-1 shares.
rhino369 10y ago
It is typical for the terms of the license include giving back and not using the actually stolen documents/code. The license would just allow them to redesign without worrying about the other party indirectly using the trade secrets. It's because you can't really close pandora's box. Though in many cases its beneficial to use this as a way to become a key supplier to a competitor. If it's not a winner take all market (and I doubt this is), then it might be more profitable to take a cut from Uber than to reduce competition by one. A Google / Uber joint venture where Google provides the software and Uber does fleet management could be unbeatable, for example.
- heisenbit 10y ago
  The protection of IPR is a strategic concern of Google. Outright theft committed by the highest levels in both companies is hard to settle for them because of the message it sends. Google may perceive to have more at stake than simply the self driving related IPR.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - londons_explore 10y ago
    Not filing suits/charges against the individuals involved suggests "sending a message" isn't the goal. In fact, the people involved look to have done rather well financially out of it so far.
    - obstinate 10y ago
      Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more. He won't make it out with his reputation or his power intact.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        > Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more. It really isn't hard to imagine - no one is too rich to be greedy, even billionaires want more money.
robotresearcher 10y ago
Because once the dust settles it amounts to a lucrative sale by Google. They both have to decide if that might be better than a long and expensive legal battle.

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.
  - londons_explore 10y ago
    Google has mega-cash, and is happy to burn through it if long term returns look plausible.
    - xapata 10y ago
      Perhaps even enough cash to create the dominant ride hail company from scratch. Coca-cola was about to buy Gatorate for $13B. Buffett squashed the deal at the 11th hour and Pepsi paid $14B. Buffett presumably thought that Coca-cola could use the $13B to make its own sports drink. It's still not clear which company was wiser.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  What do you mean by that? Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay? Or do you mean indirectly, like, Uber gets found liable for say $10bn, and Google offers isntead to buy a controlling share of Uber and then forgive the liability?
  - objclxt 10y ago
    > Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay? Sure, although that's an extremely unlikely outcome. Normally the company would be liquidated to pay the judgment (this is basically what happened in Bollea (Hogan) v Gawker - Gawker couldn't afford the damages, so had to declare bankruptcy and sell itself to pay for them).
    - londons_explore 10y ago
      It amounts to the same thing though - when the company gets liquidated, Google can buy all the assets and continue to operate the business, knowing that all the money they pay will be going right back into their own pockets. Obviously, it runs the risk someone else will come along and buy the company instead, but any other buyer will have significant ongoing IP concerns by using google tech vs re-engineering stuff. Hence, Google will probably outbid other buyers since the company has more utility to them than to others.
MagnumOpus 10y ago
Google Ventures owns only 6% of Uber. If they can drag this out sufficently, then Uber cannot IPO, will have burnt all their cash - and the whole company will be at the mercy of their biggest creditor who just got awarded a billion-dollar penalty payment.
- GCA10 10y ago
  The math still doesn't work. Right now 6% of Uber is worth about $4 billion, if you believe the latest venture valuation. (Make adjustments as you see fit.) If this is litigated until Uber collapses in a heap of dust, Google ends up owning 100% of a heap of dust. No money left to pay off the judgment. Most of the talent is gone, and the folks that remain are hardly motivated to rebuild the business for their new masters. The Napster mess is instructive. The brand might live on, but no one gets rich in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown
  - michaelt 10y ago
    The math still doesn't work. If the article's predictions come true, gaining control of Uber isn't Google's only motivation. They have a secondary motivation: To set a precedent that serves as an example to other people who have the opportunity to sell or buy their trade secrets. If there's a $680 million prize for a successful theft, and people think the chances of being caught are low, you'll need a big penalty to act as an effective deterrent.
    - chx 10y ago
      > If there's a $680 million prize for a successful theft, and people think the chances of being caught are low, you'll need a big penalty to act as an effective deterrent. The problem here is the prize. It's not a paltry few hundred millions. Just in the USA the yearly car sales are above 500 billion and we are talking about disrupting that big time. Really, really big time. It is not unreasonable to think that private car ownership will become deprecated in 20-30 years. Do you think Google won't be happy to burn the $260M they invested in Uber and a hundred more for lawyers over the years to make sure Uber doesn't get an illicit advantage when the time comes of who will be the doorkeeper? Can you imagine -- and I know Google can -- the possibilities of an ad company selling all the cars there is? Or the software therein which amounts to the same. Your self driving taxi today is free you just need to listen / watch / immerse / whatever happens by then to ads enroute. You can't even count the trillions they would make.
techthroway443 10y ago
I did not know they invest in Uber! That makes this even more interesting.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
GV, of Alphabet, is the investor in Uber. They own 1.8 million series C-1 shares.

rhino369 10y ago

It is typical for the terms of the license include giving back and not using the actually stolen documents/code. The license would just allow them to redesign without worrying about the other party indirectly using the trade secrets. It's because you can't really close pandora's box. Though in many cases its beneficial to use this as a way to become a key supplier to a competitor. If it's not a winner take all market (and I doubt this is), then it might be more profitable to take a cut from Uber than to reduce competition by one. A Google / Uber joint venture where Google provides the software and Uber does fleet management could be unbeatable, for example.

heisenbit 10y ago
The protection of IPR is a strategic concern of Google. Outright theft committed by the highest levels in both companies is hard to settle for them because of the message it sends. Google may perceive to have more at stake than simply the self driving related IPR.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- londons_explore 10y ago
  Not filing suits/charges against the individuals involved suggests "sending a message" isn't the goal. In fact, the people involved look to have done rather well financially out of it so far.
  - obstinate 10y ago
    Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more. He won't make it out with his reputation or his power intact.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more. It really isn't hard to imagine - no one is too rich to be greedy, even billionaires want more money.

robotresearcher 10y ago

Because once the dust settles it amounts to a lucrative sale by Google. They both have to decide if that might be better than a long and expensive legal battle.