7 ms·

Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

152 points by flinner 9y ago

mstank 9y ago
Can't say I'm shocked to see Uber's dishonesty here. From all the other claims against them (Lyft and sexual harassment) it seems like this type of behavior is standard operating procedure. This culture is set from the top. It's only a matter of time that Travis will step down. Sooner the better so they can start working on improving integrity throughout the organization. In the 90's, Microsoft was skewered for a lot less.
- yawaworht12 9y ago
  Based on what proof. The article provided nothing in the way of evidence, just Google's claim. They could claim anything. Since when did HN stop exercising healthy skepticism?
  - rys 9y ago
    Based on Uber producing the device in question eventually. It's in the article.
    - heisenbit 9y ago
      And the argument was that they did not go forward on that design. So they took it, investigated it and <please believe this> did not use anything they learned in the process.
      - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
        Doesn't really matter whether they went forward with the design or not. Google alleged "You took our lidar design, and you could only have gotten that design if Levandowski stole it." Uber initially: "No we didn't!" Uber later: "Actually, here it is, but doesn't matter because we don't like that design anyway." Uber is playing games that 5 year-olds play when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
        yawaworht12 9y ago
        Let's assume for a moment that this previous design bore many similarities to the google design (which could have happened just because the same people built it not solely because stolen files were used), what if the previous design were only worked on when it was Otto and was discarded when Uber acquired Otto? What would happen then? Google has specifically stated that their suit is against Uber and not Levandowsky. If this previous design was worked on wholly at Otto pre-acquisition than this lawsuit should be against Levandowsky and in arbitration. This suit is already 1 month old and Uber acquired Otto on September 18th. That's a mere 6 months. If the previous design were scrapped around that date or really only saw significant development before that date, than this lawsuit should be dismissed and focused wholly on Levandowsky and select Otto employees for whom they have evidence to believe were complicit in the alleged acts. Right now it looks like Google is fishing for an opportunity to hurt and slow down a competitor using a lawsuit instead of being the lawsuit against the person who should have been the defendant in the first place, Levandowsky. There are hundreds of engineers working on a self driving car effort of their own design for many months even years before Otto was acquired and this lawsuit is wholly unfair to the work those engineers have put in to making that happen. Google is looking a lot like Oracle here using the law to slow down and hurt engineers doing good work.
        nradov 9y ago
        That's not how the US legal system works. When Uber acquired Otto they became subject to all legal claims against Otto. The notion that an acquisition should somehow extinguish liability is just ridiculous; it would lead to companies engaging in all sorts of shell game M&A activity just to dodge lawsuits.
  - mstank 9y ago
    Also based on a pattern of behavior. These issues are systemic and have been going on for years. This is the same company that ignores sexual harassment claims, illegally tracks and blackmails journalists, deploys highly questionable anti-competitive tactics at will.
    - m4x 9y ago
      You should still wait for hard evidence before accepting Google's claims. Otherwise you will end up accepting false claims simply because they match what you believe about Uber. Making false claims in the media that have been designed to resonate with and reinforce the current zeitgeist is a pretty easy trick to pull and a lot of people fall for it. It's easy enough to avoid by waiting for hard evidence
      - quirkafleeg 9y ago
        > Otherwise you will end up accepting false claims I think you mean "may". A lack of hard evidence backing up a claim doesn't necessarily mean the claim is false.
    - yawaworht12 9y ago
      I used to work at a very successful tech company that became the Goliath in its market and saw first hand how the media vilified us and interpreted every little thing we did through evil-colored glasses. I few issues were legitimate criticisms but they were textbook cases of situations where Hanlon's Razor should have been applied. Everyone assumed malice where there there was at worst poor judgement. Eventually the media cycle reached a fever pitch to drive clicks and everything was interpreted in the worst way possible to drive whatever narrative people (just like you) wanted to believe. Cite me a single shred of evidence to support your claim that they have blackmailed a single journalist. Uber and its closest competitor Lyft engaged in pretty much all the same competitive actions but only Uber is criticized for them. Everyone criticizes Uber for subsidization tactics to win market share and conveniently ignores that Lyft does the exact same. My observations with my former employee roughly aligns with what I've seen with Uber. 20% or so is legitimate criticism (due to poor judgement) and 80% is hyperbolic and applied to us and our competitors and applies to Uber and its competitors. Near as I can tell this is a phenomena that applies to every single unicorn that has viable competitors. It happened to Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. near as I can tell, the only difference that I can tell between how Uber is being treated and they were treated come down to the zeitgeist when they came of age. The past 2-3 years has seen a sharp increase in polarization of the political atmosphere with a lot more social justice folks in journalistic positions than in years past and Uber is the favorite whipping boy. For example, Apple has been subject to this as well. Apple was widely criticized over labor practices of its suppliers in China despite the fact that it had and continues to have some of the best practices and policing of suppliers in the industry. Take the Susan Fowler situation. It's a shame and it never should have happened, but in the very same week when her blog post of allegations was published, there was an actual sexual harassment case filed in an actual court against Tesla, but almost no one heard about that because the media loves Tesla. Everyone I've spoken to that has ever worked at a successful unicorn has related similar stories of unfair criticism, especially when there were viable competitors whose investors are powerful and can drive a story through the journalists they've invested in or have strong relationships with. There's a reason why investors like Marc Andreessen have invested heavily in the career of well known Silicon Valley journalists and it's not because those journalists have an exit strategy that will net him a 10x or 100x return.
- mabbo 9y ago
  Travis won't step down, and no one can make him. He still has a majority of the voting rights (Wait, is that right? I know I heard that somewhere). He seems like the type to let the ship sink, just so long as he gets to stay the captain.
  - Diamons 9y ago
    As any entrepreneur who believes in their own vision should imo.
- golergka 9y ago
  I've been thinking about this lately. The whole character assasination of Uber happenned in the last 2 months - while all the issues, have, allegedly, been around for a long time. And all this publicity right in time for the multi-billion lawsuit... Now, I don't know enough about the situation to come to any conclusions, but the fact that no one here on HN have yet expressed the same doubts.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    It's all the YC companies, if you've noticed. They're searching all of them for dirt. Some of that dirt is real, though. I'm taking a wait and see attitude to let things play out in court. There's no prize for being the first to judge someone.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I disagree that the reporting on Uber's crap started two months ago: "Peter Thiel: Uber is most ethically challenged company in Silicon Valley" (2 years ago) "Uber employees used the platform to stalk celebrities and their exes" (4 months ago) "Uber's dirty tricks quantified: Rival counts 5,560 canceled rides" (3 years ago) "Uber Database Breach Exposed Information Of 50,000 Drivers" (2 years ago) "Uber VP: we could spend $1M to take revenge on journalists" (2 years ago) "Uber secretly investigated its legal foes — and got caught" (9 months ago) "Lyft Accuses Former COO of Stealing Confidential Docs Before Joining Uber" (2 years ago) "Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us" (2 years ago)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SCAQTony 9y ago
In the past year have we ever gone a single month without hearing about malfeasance, exploitation or sexual harassment within that company? April alone has tabloid month! Perhaps Uber's CEO should resign so the company can get some breathing room and reboot their brand.
- sebleon 9y ago
  While the news makes sensationalist headlines and online outrage, sadly it doesn't seem like consumers care about Uber's behavior.
  - sprafa 9y ago
    In most of the world there are no choices. In London there's either Uber or Addison Lee, but the price is lower on Uber. When everyone is forced to play for profits plenty of companies will emerge quickly but for now Uber just burns VC money so they can dominate the market and everyone else stays away (because no one else has free money to burn). We'll find out soon enough whether burning VC money for market penetration was a good idea or just a SV folly.
    - yawaworht12 9y ago
      Is Uber the only one burning through VC money? Near as I can tell, all the companies are subsidizing to win market share while they figure out how to control costs and get the most bang for their subsidization buck. Can anyone point me at a single ridesharing company that isn't heavily subsidizing the fares? Assuming they are all subsidizing fares (which I'm almost certain is the case), the question we should be asking ourselves is which ridesharing company is earning the most incremental revenue per subsidy dollar spent?
      - barneygale 9y ago
        As per naked capitalism's critique, pouring money into Uber will never make fuel, cars or salaries cheaper. There is no magic point where Uber reaches a certain efficiency of scale and stops needing to subsidise every ride. This is why I use Uber as much as possible: they're doomed, and every ride taken in a redistribution of wealth from silicon valley investors to consumers.
nojvek 9y ago
I see Uber as our generation's Groupon. Wildly overvalued slowly heading to a cliff.
- yeukhon 9y ago
  They do have revenue, but not profit, lost $3B last year despite seeing growth in revenue . The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon. Car service is more direct. Groupon isn't a bad idea either, but the experience isn't as direct and as Uber. You see, emailing me / texting me offers is great, but I don't have time to scroll down and read the same kind of email everyday. If instead at checkout coupon/promote code is added that would have been great. I have Target, Walgreen apps on my phone. When I visit the store, I clip the coupon onto my account and then checkout. This still requires me to search on the app, but at least it's at my fingertip. It would be better off if I get the promotion regardless. The use of Uber is also in the user's hand, but spontaneous. Anyway, I think Uber will stay, but I suspect Uber may have to scale back its global expansion. Perhaps I am short-sighted. It would be interesting to see the revenue and spending geographically.
  - kartan 9y ago
    > The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon. To illegally set up a non-compliant taxi service that doesn't pay taxes, that doesn't pay minimum wage to its employees, that has been banned already in several countries, that ignores human safety introducing illegally self-driving cars, it is not a very good business model.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - yeukhon 9y ago
      Well I am not saying it is ethical or not, but I clearly said it's "business goal", not "business model".
    - fujiters 9y ago
bichiliad 9y ago
I'm a bit confused — has anything developed since the lawsuit was filed in late February[0]? [0]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474305-1-Main.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474305-1-Main.html
- bestnameever 9y ago
  Yes, you're actually commenting on a thread which is discussing the latest updates. From the article: "In the latest filing, Alphabet says Uber hid a lidar device Levandowski designed based on these files. The company says Uber obfuscated the existence of a piece of lidar technology at an April 12 hearing." https://www.recode.net/2017/4/21/15390074/alphabet-uber-hiding-self-driving https://www.recode.net/2017/4/21/15390074/alphabet-uber-hidi...
  - bichiliad 9y ago
    Sorry — that's what I get for skimming.
burntrelish1273 9y ago
Let's not jump to conclusions: Waymo maybe looking to sharp-elbow into ride-sharing. These are still allegations and there's no verdict/settlement yet. In general, the bigger the venture, the bigger the damage of acting dishonestly and the bigger the bulls' eye for lawsuits painted on the side. Uber, being the category first-mover, is going to attract a lot of hate by being giant and uncool, even without the political endorsements. It would be great if Lyft, Uber and Waymo did ride-sharing and were as honest/socially-responsible as possible. That would be better competition for selfish passengers like me. I prefer Lyft these days but may look at Uber again if they show they a consistent pattern of honorable behavior.
- yawaworht12 9y ago
  At this point I think they are trying the Microsoft/Oracle strategy. It looks like they are using a lawsuit and the discovery process are to get enough information to determine which, if any, of their patents may have been infringed and they are now trying to figure out how to extract rent from the first-mover. It's hard to assert patents against black boxes that you don't know the implementation details of. Using discovery to pry open the black box is underhanded but one way to get a look at an implementation normally hidden from view. It's a slimy tactic but given how profitable patent royalties are I can't blame them for trying.
burntrelish1273 9y ago
Let's not jump to conclusions: Waymo maybe looking to sharp-elbow into ride-sharing. These are still allegations and there's no verdict/settlement yet. In general, the bigger the venture, the bigger the damage of acting dishonestly and the bigger the bulls' eye for lawsuits painted on the side. Uber, being the category first-mover, is going to attract a lot of hate by being giant and uncool, even without the political endorsements. It would be great if Lyft, Uber and Waymo did ride-sharing and were as honest/socially-responsible as possible. That would be better competition for selfish passengers like me.
nullc 9y ago
Is it the secret of embedding lidar at the trailer hitch in your cars so that it's sure to get smashed if someone rear ends you?
OliverJones 9y ago
Just an observation .... locating the 20th century car industry in Detroit gave them an unfair advantage over California. Cars have to function correctly in bad weather -- rain, ice, snow, etc. Taxicabs especially. Imagine a transport system in a city like New York or DC where taxis don't function in a rainstorm. It's in bad weather that drivers earn their pay. I know from experience that the Tesla driver assistance stuff doesn't work in the rain. It won't engage. "Can't see well enough" is what it says. Maybe these Sili Valley types should stop fighting over fair-weather car control stuff, and spend the same money setting up development shops somewhere besides endless-summer California. Patents only last 20 years. It's going to take 30 to convert the transport network.
- yawaworht12 9y ago
  Like Pittsburgh?
  - vermontdevil 9y ago
    Especially Pittsburgh with bridges and hills.
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      I think the point was that Uber's self-driving effort is located in Pittsburgh, so when the parent says > Maybe these Sili Valley types should stop fighting over fair-weather car control stuff, and spend the same money setting up development shops somewhere besides endless-summer California. that's exactly what Uber's done.
  - tsunamifury 9y ago
    We get the it, you work for Cruise.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    Where an Uber autonomous vehicle went the wrong way up a 1-way street?
- 9y ago
revelation 9y ago
Is the docket for this available somewhere? I hate reports that won't link (or provide) the original source.
- kyrra 9y ago
  I just use this search[0]. I believe this is the latest filing[1]. Full docket is here[2]. Note that many of the filings arent mirrored publicly, so you would need to buy them through PACER. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Waymo https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Waymo [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3676397-Waymo-Motion-to-File-Under-Seal-4-21-2017.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3676397-Waymo-Motion... [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-uber-technologies-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-ube...
electriclove 9y ago
"In the latest filing, Alphabet says Uber hid a lidar device Levandowski designed based on these files. The company says Uber obfuscated the existence of a piece of lidar technology at an April 12 hearing. Uber denies this and says it eventually produced the device in question. "
mannykannot 9y ago
I know the law has a complicated relationship with logic, but in normal usage, Uber's claim that it is no longer interested in LIDAR, even if taken at face value, clearly has no bearing on the question of whether it was party to an earlier theft of LIDAR-related documents.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Uber denies this and says it eventually produced the device in question. A representative for Uber told Recode the company did not initially produce the device because they did not think they were required to do so as its designs had been abandoned. In litigation, one side serves the other side "discovery requests," which are pointed requests for specifically described documents or information. Everyone produces as little as they can get away with in response to discovery requests. Here, it sounds like the discovery request was possibly susceptible to the interpretation that it was only asking for designs that Uber was still actively pursuing, or at least that's how Uber originally tried to interpret it and an employee blew up their spit at a deposition. It's hard to tell without knowing the exact wording of the discovery request.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Alternatively, some litigants produce as much as they can get away with in order to flood their opponent with irrelevant documents, drive up their legal costs, and delay the case.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

152 points by flinner 9y ago

Can't say I'm shocked to see Uber's dishonesty here. From all the other claims against them (Lyft and sexual harassment) it seems like this type of behavior is standard operating procedure. This culture is set from the top. It's only a matter of time that Travis will step down. Sooner the better so they can start working on improving integrity throughout the organization. In the 90's, Microsoft was skewered for a lot less.

yawaworht12 9y ago
Based on what proof. The article provided nothing in the way of evidence, just Google's claim. They could claim anything. Since when did HN stop exercising healthy skepticism?
- rys 9y ago
  Based on Uber producing the device in question eventually. It's in the article.
  - heisenbit 9y ago
    And the argument was that they did not go forward on that design. So they took it, investigated it and <please believe this> did not use anything they learned in the process.
    - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
      Doesn't really matter whether they went forward with the design or not. Google alleged "You took our lidar design, and you could only have gotten that design if Levandowski stole it." Uber initially: "No we didn't!" Uber later: "Actually, here it is, but doesn't matter because we don't like that design anyway." Uber is playing games that 5 year-olds play when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
      - yawaworht12 9y ago
        Let's assume for a moment that this previous design bore many similarities to the google design (which could have happened just because the same people built it not solely because stolen files were used), what if the previous design were only worked on when it was Otto and was discarded when Uber acquired Otto? What would happen then? Google has specifically stated that their suit is against Uber and not Levandowsky. If this previous design was worked on wholly at Otto pre-acquisition than this lawsuit should be against Levandowsky and in arbitration. This suit is already 1 month old and Uber acquired Otto on September 18th. That's a mere 6 months. If the previous design were scrapped around that date or really only saw significant development before that date, than this lawsuit should be dismissed and focused wholly on Levandowsky and select Otto employees for whom they have evidence to believe were complicit in the alleged acts. Right now it looks like Google is fishing for an opportunity to hurt and slow down a competitor using a lawsuit instead of being the lawsuit against the person who should have been the defendant in the first place, Levandowsky. There are hundreds of engineers working on a self driving car effort of their own design for many months even years before Otto was acquired and this lawsuit is wholly unfair to the work those engineers have put in to making that happen. Google is looking a lot like Oracle here using the law to slow down and hurt engineers doing good work.
        nradov 9y ago
        That's not how the US legal system works. When Uber acquired Otto they became subject to all legal claims against Otto. The notion that an acquisition should somehow extinguish liability is just ridiculous; it would lead to companies engaging in all sorts of shell game M&A activity just to dodge lawsuits.
- mstank 9y ago
  Also based on a pattern of behavior. These issues are systemic and have been going on for years. This is the same company that ignores sexual harassment claims, illegally tracks and blackmails journalists, deploys highly questionable anti-competitive tactics at will.
  - m4x 9y ago
    You should still wait for hard evidence before accepting Google's claims. Otherwise you will end up accepting false claims simply because they match what you believe about Uber. Making false claims in the media that have been designed to resonate with and reinforce the current zeitgeist is a pretty easy trick to pull and a lot of people fall for it. It's easy enough to avoid by waiting for hard evidence
    - quirkafleeg 9y ago
      > Otherwise you will end up accepting false claims I think you mean "may". A lack of hard evidence backing up a claim doesn't necessarily mean the claim is false.
  - yawaworht12 9y ago
    I used to work at a very successful tech company that became the Goliath in its market and saw first hand how the media vilified us and interpreted every little thing we did through evil-colored glasses. I few issues were legitimate criticisms but they were textbook cases of situations where Hanlon's Razor should have been applied. Everyone assumed malice where there there was at worst poor judgement. Eventually the media cycle reached a fever pitch to drive clicks and everything was interpreted in the worst way possible to drive whatever narrative people (just like you) wanted to believe. Cite me a single shred of evidence to support your claim that they have blackmailed a single journalist. Uber and its closest competitor Lyft engaged in pretty much all the same competitive actions but only Uber is criticized for them. Everyone criticizes Uber for subsidization tactics to win market share and conveniently ignores that Lyft does the exact same. My observations with my former employee roughly aligns with what I've seen with Uber. 20% or so is legitimate criticism (due to poor judgement) and 80% is hyperbolic and applied to us and our competitors and applies to Uber and its competitors. Near as I can tell this is a phenomena that applies to every single unicorn that has viable competitors. It happened to Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. near as I can tell, the only difference that I can tell between how Uber is being treated and they were treated come down to the zeitgeist when they came of age. The past 2-3 years has seen a sharp increase in polarization of the political atmosphere with a lot more social justice folks in journalistic positions than in years past and Uber is the favorite whipping boy. For example, Apple has been subject to this as well. Apple was widely criticized over labor practices of its suppliers in China despite the fact that it had and continues to have some of the best practices and policing of suppliers in the industry. Take the Susan Fowler situation. It's a shame and it never should have happened, but in the very same week when her blog post of allegations was published, there was an actual sexual harassment case filed in an actual court against Tesla, but almost no one heard about that because the media loves Tesla. Everyone I've spoken to that has ever worked at a successful unicorn has related similar stories of unfair criticism, especially when there were viable competitors whose investors are powerful and can drive a story through the journalists they've invested in or have strong relationships with. There's a reason why investors like Marc Andreessen have invested heavily in the career of well known Silicon Valley journalists and it's not because those journalists have an exit strategy that will net him a 10x or 100x return.
mabbo 9y ago
Travis won't step down, and no one can make him. He still has a majority of the voting rights (Wait, is that right? I know I heard that somewhere). He seems like the type to let the ship sink, just so long as he gets to stay the captain.
- Diamons 9y ago
  As any entrepreneur who believes in their own vision should imo.
golergka 9y ago
I've been thinking about this lately. The whole character assasination of Uber happenned in the last 2 months - while all the issues, have, allegedly, been around for a long time. And all this publicity right in time for the multi-billion lawsuit... Now, I don't know enough about the situation to come to any conclusions, but the fact that no one here on HN have yet expressed the same doubts.
- Natsu 9y ago
  It's all the YC companies, if you've noticed. They're searching all of them for dirt. Some of that dirt is real, though. I'm taking a wait and see attitude to let things play out in court. There's no prize for being the first to judge someone.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I disagree that the reporting on Uber's crap started two months ago: "Peter Thiel: Uber is most ethically challenged company in Silicon Valley" (2 years ago) "Uber employees used the platform to stalk celebrities and their exes" (4 months ago) "Uber's dirty tricks quantified: Rival counts 5,560 canceled rides" (3 years ago) "Uber Database Breach Exposed Information Of 50,000 Drivers" (2 years ago) "Uber VP: we could spend $1M to take revenge on journalists" (2 years ago) "Uber secretly investigated its legal foes — and got caught" (9 months ago) "Lyft Accuses Former COO of Stealing Confidential Docs Before Joining Uber" (2 years ago) "Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us" (2 years ago)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

SCAQTony 9y ago

In the past year have we ever gone a single month without hearing about malfeasance, exploitation or sexual harassment within that company? April alone has tabloid month! Perhaps Uber's CEO should resign so the company can get some breathing room and reboot their brand.

sebleon 9y ago
While the news makes sensationalist headlines and online outrage, sadly it doesn't seem like consumers care about Uber's behavior.
- sprafa 9y ago
  In most of the world there are no choices. In London there's either Uber or Addison Lee, but the price is lower on Uber. When everyone is forced to play for profits plenty of companies will emerge quickly but for now Uber just burns VC money so they can dominate the market and everyone else stays away (because no one else has free money to burn). We'll find out soon enough whether burning VC money for market penetration was a good idea or just a SV folly.
  - yawaworht12 9y ago
    Is Uber the only one burning through VC money? Near as I can tell, all the companies are subsidizing to win market share while they figure out how to control costs and get the most bang for their subsidization buck. Can anyone point me at a single ridesharing company that isn't heavily subsidizing the fares? Assuming they are all subsidizing fares (which I'm almost certain is the case), the question we should be asking ourselves is which ridesharing company is earning the most incremental revenue per subsidy dollar spent?
    - barneygale 9y ago
      As per naked capitalism's critique, pouring money into Uber will never make fuel, cars or salaries cheaper. There is no magic point where Uber reaches a certain efficiency of scale and stops needing to subsidise every ride. This is why I use Uber as much as possible: they're doomed, and every ride taken in a redistribution of wealth from silicon valley investors to consumers.

nojvek 9y ago

I see Uber as our generation's Groupon. Wildly overvalued slowly heading to a cliff.

yeukhon 9y ago
They do have revenue, but not profit, lost $3B last year despite seeing growth in revenue . The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon. Car service is more direct. Groupon isn't a bad idea either, but the experience isn't as direct and as Uber. You see, emailing me / texting me offers is great, but I don't have time to scroll down and read the same kind of email everyday. If instead at checkout coupon/promote code is added that would have been great. I have Target, Walgreen apps on my phone. When I visit the store, I clip the coupon onto my account and then checkout. This still requires me to search on the app, but at least it's at my fingertip. It would be better off if I get the promotion regardless. The use of Uber is also in the user's hand, but spontaneous. Anyway, I think Uber will stay, but I suspect Uber may have to scale back its global expansion. Perhaps I am short-sighted. It would be interesting to see the revenue and spending geographically.
- kartan 9y ago
  > The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon. To illegally set up a non-compliant taxi service that doesn't pay taxes, that doesn't pay minimum wage to its employees, that has been banned already in several countries, that ignores human safety introducing illegally self-driving cars, it is not a very good business model.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - yeukhon 9y ago
    Well I am not saying it is ethical or not, but I clearly said it's "business goal", not "business model".
  - fujiters 9y ago

bichiliad 9y ago

I'm a bit confused — has anything developed since the lawsuit was filed in late February[0]? [0]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474305-1-Main.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474305-1-Main.html

bestnameever 9y ago
Yes, you're actually commenting on a thread which is discussing the latest updates. From the article: "In the latest filing, Alphabet says Uber hid a lidar device Levandowski designed based on these files. The company says Uber obfuscated the existence of a piece of lidar technology at an April 12 hearing." https://www.recode.net/2017/4/21/15390074/alphabet-uber-hiding-self-driving https://www.recode.net/2017/4/21/15390074/alphabet-uber-hidi...
- bichiliad 9y ago
  Sorry — that's what I get for skimming.

burntrelish1273 9y ago

Let's not jump to conclusions: Waymo maybe looking to sharp-elbow into ride-sharing. These are still allegations and there's no verdict/settlement yet. In general, the bigger the venture, the bigger the damage of acting dishonestly and the bigger the bulls' eye for lawsuits painted on the side. Uber, being the category first-mover, is going to attract a lot of hate by being giant and uncool, even without the political endorsements. It would be great if Lyft, Uber and Waymo did ride-sharing and were as honest/socially-responsible as possible. That would be better competition for selfish passengers like me. I prefer Lyft these days but may look at Uber again if they show they a consistent pattern of honorable behavior.

yawaworht12 9y ago
At this point I think they are trying the Microsoft/Oracle strategy. It looks like they are using a lawsuit and the discovery process are to get enough information to determine which, if any, of their patents may have been infringed and they are now trying to figure out how to extract rent from the first-mover. It's hard to assert patents against black boxes that you don't know the implementation details of. Using discovery to pry open the black box is underhanded but one way to get a look at an implementation normally hidden from view. It's a slimy tactic but given how profitable patent royalties are I can't blame them for trying.

burntrelish1273 9y ago

nullc 9y ago

Is it the secret of embedding lidar at the trailer hitch in your cars so that it's sure to get smashed if someone rear ends you?

OliverJones 9y ago

Just an observation .... locating the 20th century car industry in Detroit gave them an unfair advantage over California. Cars have to function correctly in bad weather -- rain, ice, snow, etc. Taxicabs especially. Imagine a transport system in a city like New York or DC where taxis don't function in a rainstorm. It's in bad weather that drivers earn their pay. I know from experience that the Tesla driver assistance stuff doesn't work in the rain. It won't engage. "Can't see well enough" is what it says. Maybe these Sili Valley types should stop fighting over fair-weather car control stuff, and spend the same money setting up development shops somewhere besides endless-summer California. Patents only last 20 years. It's going to take 30 to convert the transport network.

yawaworht12 9y ago
Like Pittsburgh?
- vermontdevil 9y ago
  Especially Pittsburgh with bridges and hills.
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    I think the point was that Uber's self-driving effort is located in Pittsburgh, so when the parent says > Maybe these Sili Valley types should stop fighting over fair-weather car control stuff, and spend the same money setting up development shops somewhere besides endless-summer California. that's exactly what Uber's done.
- tsunamifury 9y ago
  We get the it, you work for Cruise.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Where an Uber autonomous vehicle went the wrong way up a 1-way street?
9y ago

revelation 9y ago

Is the docket for this available somewhere? I hate reports that won't link (or provide) the original source.

kyrra 9y ago
I just use this search[0]. I believe this is the latest filing[1]. Full docket is here[2]. Note that many of the filings arent mirrored publicly, so you would need to buy them through PACER. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Waymo https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Waymo [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3676397-Waymo-Motion-to-File-Under-Seal-4-21-2017.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3676397-Waymo-Motion... [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-uber-technologies-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-ube...

electriclove 9y ago

"In the latest filing, Alphabet says Uber hid a lidar device Levandowski designed based on these files. The company says Uber obfuscated the existence of a piece of lidar technology at an April 12 hearing. Uber denies this and says it eventually produced the device in question. "

mannykannot 9y ago

I know the law has a complicated relationship with logic, but in normal usage, Uber's claim that it is no longer interested in LIDAR, even if taken at face value, clearly has no bearing on the question of whether it was party to an earlier theft of LIDAR-related documents.

rayiner 9y ago
> Uber denies this and says it eventually produced the device in question. A representative for Uber told Recode the company did not initially produce the device because they did not think they were required to do so as its designs had been abandoned. In litigation, one side serves the other side "discovery requests," which are pointed requests for specifically described documents or information. Everyone produces as little as they can get away with in response to discovery requests. Here, it sounds like the discovery request was possibly susceptible to the interpretation that it was only asking for designs that Uber was still actively pursuing, or at least that's how Uber originally tried to interpret it and an employee blew up their spit at a deposition. It's hard to tell without knowing the exact wording of the discovery request.
- nradov 9y ago
  Alternatively, some litigants produce as much as they can get away with in order to flood their opponent with irrelevant documents, drive up their legal costs, and delay the case.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]