3 ms·

(IANAL) Imagine this was a criminal case where person A is charged with hiring person B to kill person C. Exhibit A is a forum post made by person A asking som

(IANAL) Imagine this was a criminal case where person A is charged with hiring person B to kill person C. Exhibit A is a forum post made by person A asking someone to assassinate person C for $15,000, exhibit B is a $15,000 check from person A to person B, and exhibit C is the gun used to kill person C, legally purchased by person A a few months ago and left at the scene of the crime with person B's fingerprints on it. When called to testify in the trial, person B just claims the 5th amendment and contributes zero evidence either way to the trial. How do you prove that person A didn't hire person B to kill person C? That is easily enough evidence to satisfy a jury's "reasonable doubt" so how can you get out of such a predicament? That's how bad it is for Uber. The above example is a no-win scenario for person A unless you can convince the jury that the check or the gun were planted by the police (or were otherwise fabricated evidence). Uber can't do that because Google's case is so strong and no one is able to deny the theft of all the files.

willglynn 10y ago
This is a civil case, so Waymo's burden isn't "reasonable doubt", it's "preponderance of the evidence". In other words: is it more likely than not that Otto stole their tech from Waymo? This is a much easier bar to clear as a plaintiff. It's the defense's job to make the case that it's more likely than not that they didn't do whatever they're accused of doing. In this case specifically, one side has extensive computer records that strongly suggest wrongdoing, and the other side hasn't yet produced any evidence -- or even any statements -- contradicting that. Good luck, guys.
montycantsin 10y ago
No, that's bad for our justice system. It sounds like it isn't able to keep up with current times.
ExactoKnight 10y ago
Without knowing the law, it seems like Uber could construct a viable legal defence around admitting that they inappropriately got access to these files, while simultaneously arguing that they should not face an injunction blocking work on self-driving technology, because the current technology they're developing differs significantly enough from the proprietary tech Google is trying to claim ownership over.
- callmeal 10y ago
  But it's kinda telling that they are _not_ doing that, isn't it? Just shows how badly Uber screwed up and how Waymo's evidence of theft cannot be so easily dismissed.
- pc86 10y ago
  > Without knowing the law The most important four words here.
  - ExactoKnight 10y ago
    Would love to be told why the law says this defence wouldn't work.

willglynn 10y ago

This is a civil case, so Waymo's burden isn't "reasonable doubt", it's "preponderance of the evidence". In other words: is it more likely than not that Otto stole their tech from Waymo? This is a much easier bar to clear as a plaintiff. It's the defense's job to make the case that it's more likely than not that they didn't do whatever they're accused of doing. In this case specifically, one side has extensive computer records that strongly suggest wrongdoing, and the other side hasn't yet produced any evidence -- or even any statements -- contradicting that. Good luck, guys.

montycantsin 10y ago

No, that's bad for our justice system. It sounds like it isn't able to keep up with current times.

ExactoKnight 10y ago

Without knowing the law, it seems like Uber could construct a viable legal defence around admitting that they inappropriately got access to these files, while simultaneously arguing that they should not face an injunction blocking work on self-driving technology, because the current technology they're developing differs significantly enough from the proprietary tech Google is trying to claim ownership over.

callmeal 10y ago
But it's kinda telling that they are _not_ doing that, isn't it? Just shows how badly Uber screwed up and how Waymo's evidence of theft cannot be so easily dismissed.
pc86 10y ago
> Without knowing the law The most important four words here.
- ExactoKnight 10y ago
  Would love to be told why the law says this defence wouldn't work.