4 ms·
This resolved to the Judge ordering a deeper search: "[The Judge] told Uber to search using 15 terms provided by Waymo, first on the employees’ computers that
by aresant 10y ago
This resolved to the Judge ordering a deeper search:
"[The Judge] told Uber to search using 15 terms provided by Waymo, first on the employees’ computers that had already been searched, then on 10 employees’ computers selected by Waymo, and then on all other servers and devices connected to employees who work on Uber’s LiDAR system."
Seems interesting that there's not a more comprehensive system or way to search for these since Google is clearly in possession of the specific documents they claim are stolen.
The way they're continuing the Judge's order to look for "15 terms" almost makes it seem like the extent of the original search was tied to file name or document titles or something?
- moftz 10y agoThey are probably very specific search terms that are repeated in the documents and might be unique enough to show up in any documents created by someone plagiarizing the Waymo docs. The fact that 31,000 other documents also contain these phrases but are "not substantive" makes it seem like the search terms are somewhat generic but definitely appear in the Waymo docs. Uber might have ruled out all of those other docs by just looking at the dates the docs were last modified. If they are older than when Levandowski or any of the other people previously employed by Waymo joined Uber, then they can probably be vetted as original IP.