3 ms·

So once the injunction is served (which is looking increasingly likely), what will the spillover effects look like? I'm assuming Uber valuation tanks at this po

So once the injunction is served (which is looking increasingly likely), what will the spillover effects look like? I'm assuming Uber valuation tanks at this point, but how does that propagate?

holtalanm 10y ago
i don't know why an injunction would be served if Uber's in-house technology is significantly different from Waymo's. That, and the fact that Uber is apparently using 3rd-party hardware on their current self-driving vehicles.
- booleanbetrayal 10y ago
  "Uber also claims that, contrary to paperwork filed with the Nevada DMV, it has never deployed a custom LiDAR system in any of its cars or trucks and will not be ready to do so by the time the case is slated to go to trial in October." via https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/07/ubers-legal-defense-waymo-does-lidar-better-for-now/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/07/ubers-legal-defense-waym... -- "A Waymo spokesperson told Engadget: "Uber's assertion that they've never touched the 14,000 stolen files is disingenuous at best, given their refusal to look in the most obvious place: the computers and devices owned by the head of their self-driving program. We're asking the court to step in based on clear evidence that Uber is using, or plans to use, our trade secrets to develop their LiDAR technology, as seen in both circuit board blueprints and filings in the State of Nevada." If they've legally filed with the state of Nevada as using proprietary LiDAR tech, doesn't that put the nail in the coffin? As an aside, if it is found that the stolen documents were disseminated internally, don't they have a near-impossible burden of proof that no trade secrets were integrated into the braintrust of the company? How is this typically handled? I imagine it involves rebuilding the division and dismissing any previous project participants.
  - booleanbetrayal 10y ago
    Additional information on Nevada filings -- https://backchannel.com/how-my-public-records-request-triggered-waymos-self-driving-car-lawsuit-1699ff35ac28 https://backchannel.com/how-my-public-records-request-trigge... "Otto noted that it had developed an “in-house custom built 64-laser (Class 1) emitting 6.4 million beams a second at 10Hz.”" ... "Lidow explained that many lidars today use 32 lasers and 1 or 2 million beams per second, and that a 64-laser system emitting 6.4 million beams a second would give superior vertical resolution and quicker refreshes. This would be better able to capture small, fast objects such as bouncing balls or animals darting into the road. It would also be technically challenging to build. “But I don’t think the speed of the system or the number of laser pulses are definitive in any way to tell you whose system it is,” he said." While Velodyne has a 64 channel product, I can't find any reference of a Velodyne system that comes close to that 6.4M beam per second refresh.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

So once the injunction is served (which is looking increasingly likely), what will the spillover effects look like? I'm assuming Uber valuation tanks at this point, but how does that propagate?

holtalanm 10y ago

i don't know why an injunction would be served if Uber's in-house technology is significantly different from Waymo's. That, and the fact that Uber is apparently using 3rd-party hardware on their current self-driving vehicles.

booleanbetrayal 10y ago
"Uber also claims that, contrary to paperwork filed with the Nevada DMV, it has never deployed a custom LiDAR system in any of its cars or trucks and will not be ready to do so by the time the case is slated to go to trial in October." via https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/07/ubers-legal-defense-waymo-does-lidar-better-for-now/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/07/ubers-legal-defense-waym... -- "A Waymo spokesperson told Engadget: "Uber's assertion that they've never touched the 14,000 stolen files is disingenuous at best, given their refusal to look in the most obvious place: the computers and devices owned by the head of their self-driving program. We're asking the court to step in based on clear evidence that Uber is using, or plans to use, our trade secrets to develop their LiDAR technology, as seen in both circuit board blueprints and filings in the State of Nevada." If they've legally filed with the state of Nevada as using proprietary LiDAR tech, doesn't that put the nail in the coffin? As an aside, if it is found that the stolen documents were disseminated internally, don't they have a near-impossible burden of proof that no trade secrets were integrated into the braintrust of the company? How is this typically handled? I imagine it involves rebuilding the division and dismissing any previous project participants.
- booleanbetrayal 10y ago
  Additional information on Nevada filings -- https://backchannel.com/how-my-public-records-request-triggered-waymos-self-driving-car-lawsuit-1699ff35ac28 https://backchannel.com/how-my-public-records-request-trigge... "Otto noted that it had developed an “in-house custom built 64-laser (Class 1) emitting 6.4 million beams a second at 10Hz.”" ... "Lidow explained that many lidars today use 32 lasers and 1 or 2 million beams per second, and that a 64-laser system emitting 6.4 million beams a second would give superior vertical resolution and quicker refreshes. This would be better able to capture small, fast objects such as bouncing balls or animals darting into the road. It would also be technically challenging to build. “But I don’t think the speed of the system or the number of laser pulses are definitive in any way to tell you whose system it is,” he said." While Velodyne has a 64 channel product, I can't find any reference of a Velodyne system that comes close to that 6.4M beam per second refresh.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]