6 ms·

It is both. What happens if they admit to stealing trade secrets, and clearly intend to continue to compete in the market? Could the judge literally kick them o

It is both. What happens if they admit to stealing trade secrets, and clearly intend to continue to compete in the market? Could the judge literally kick them out of the industry, or force the company to disband by labeling it an illegal organization?

ajdlinux 9y ago
I imagine injunctive relief is an option for Waymo that could limit Uber's options for some time.
stale2002 9y ago
OK, it is not THAT bad. The very worst worst case scenario is that Uber would be barred from using rotating, parabolic, Lidars. But there are a lot of other ways of making self driving cars that don't use this specific method of sensor technology. Uber could even just come to an agreement with Google, and license the technology.
- memmcgee 9y ago
  It very much looks like Uber did this premeditated and that Travis and the Otto guy planned this while he was still at Google. It is VERY bad for Uber and they could get hit with much worse than just being banned from using a specific technology. The judge has already referred the case to the USA's office for possible criminal charges. Maybe we'll actually see an executive thrown in jail for once.
  - smoodles 9y ago
    while I'd love to see this, I think that is highly doubtful :(
    - woodandsteel 9y ago
      Why do you think it is highly doubtful?
      - memmcgee 9y ago
        Because Wall Street executives caused the economy to collapse and only one of them got thrown in jail. Executives only end up in jail when they hurt the rich (see: Enron, Bernie Madoff)
        woodandsteel 9y ago
        But Uber is not a Wall Street firm. And Google claims Uber has hurt it, and Google is very rich.
Gibbon1 9y ago
Someone I know worked for a tech company in the valley back in the eighties that made high end medical equipment. They caught an American and Japanese company trying to reverse engineer one of their products. End result was both companies were bared from that market for something like 15 years.
- tomp 9y ago
  Why is reverse engineering illegal (unless covered by a patent)?
  - smoodles 9y ago
    My recollection is reverse engineering is legal, but it needs to be done carefully. Using staff that designed the "thing" you are trying to reverse engineer is not part of the doing it carefully bit...
- cbr 9y ago
  This story is missing something, since reverse engineering is legal and done properly [1] gets you around copyrights and trade secrets. We're patents involved? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
  - amyjess 9y ago
    My guess is corporate espionage. For them to get an injunction like this, they probably paid members of the engineering team to give them proprietary information.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    You're going to have a hard time proving it was done properly, clean room, etc, when one of the heads of your department on the topic was a key engineer of the technology you are supposedly reverse engineering when he worked on it at the competitor who developed it.
    - 9y ago

ajdlinux 9y ago

I imagine injunctive relief is an option for Waymo that could limit Uber's options for some time.

stale2002 9y ago

OK, it is not THAT bad. The very worst worst case scenario is that Uber would be barred from using rotating, parabolic, Lidars. But there are a lot of other ways of making self driving cars that don't use this specific method of sensor technology. Uber could even just come to an agreement with Google, and license the technology.

memmcgee 9y ago
It very much looks like Uber did this premeditated and that Travis and the Otto guy planned this while he was still at Google. It is VERY bad for Uber and they could get hit with much worse than just being banned from using a specific technology. The judge has already referred the case to the USA's office for possible criminal charges. Maybe we'll actually see an executive thrown in jail for once.
- smoodles 9y ago
  while I'd love to see this, I think that is highly doubtful :(
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    Why do you think it is highly doubtful?
    - memmcgee 9y ago
      Because Wall Street executives caused the economy to collapse and only one of them got thrown in jail. Executives only end up in jail when they hurt the rich (see: Enron, Bernie Madoff)
      - woodandsteel 9y ago
        But Uber is not a Wall Street firm. And Google claims Uber has hurt it, and Google is very rich.

Gibbon1 9y ago

Someone I know worked for a tech company in the valley back in the eighties that made high end medical equipment. They caught an American and Japanese company trying to reverse engineer one of their products. End result was both companies were bared from that market for something like 15 years.

tomp 9y ago
Why is reverse engineering illegal (unless covered by a patent)?
- smoodles 9y ago
  My recollection is reverse engineering is legal, but it needs to be done carefully. Using staff that designed the "thing" you are trying to reverse engineer is not part of the doing it carefully bit...
cbr 9y ago
This story is missing something, since reverse engineering is legal and done properly [1] gets you around copyrights and trade secrets. We're patents involved? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
- amyjess 9y ago
  My guess is corporate espionage. For them to get an injunction like this, they probably paid members of the engineering team to give them proprietary information.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  You're going to have a hard time proving it was done properly, clean room, etc, when one of the heads of your department on the topic was a key engineer of the technology you are supposedly reverse engineering when he worked on it at the competitor who developed it.
  - 9y ago