4 ms·

How do they go about enforcing this?

MBCook 9y ago
That's my question. Given that Uber claims they weren't using the technology... how can you tell if they stopped? Just forbid them from using LIDAR altogether?
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Waymo is allowed to look at the devices and supporting documentation and see if there is any stolen IP.
- rotflmao 9y ago
  Uber is allowed to continue working on and using LIDAR. The article has intentionally mislead you because Uber is every journalist's favorite boogeyman right now.
- bdonlan 9y ago
  Effectively this means that if they were using it, and they continue using it, they can add contempt of court to the list of potential charges I guess.
- rhino369 9y ago
  The judge could have gone that broad and issued a total injunction, but he purposely didn't. I've been involved in situations like this. The end result is likely the status quo. Both parties will fight over it more, of course. But if Uber says they don't have or use the documents, they'll just continue business as usual.
- linkregister 9y ago
  This is answered in the actual injunction document. Uber is required to perform a thorough accounting of any design aspects stemming from the trade secrets noted in Waymo's filing. Uber is required to interview all individuals who worked with Levandowski to circumvent Levandowski's usage of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination protections. If Uber can't compel the information the court seeks, it must use its full authority to obtain it. Judge Alsop explicitly says Uber must terminate any uncooperative employee. A Waymo attorney and an expert get to audit Uber's self-driving technology to identify aspects of the trade secrets annotated in Waymo's filing. The enforcement is that if Waymo's expert and attorney unearth any lack of compliance by Uber, they can face Contempt of Court charges. Since Waymo is pursuing this case zealously, I expect this to be enough incentive for Uber to follow the court order in good faith. In the past, Uber has complied with discovery motions even when the results embarrassed the company, e.g. the executive venting: about how he wishes he could dig up dirt to discredit a journalist.
phamilton 9y ago
As I understand it, Google is granted expedited discovery and Uber basically has to allow Google to give a stamp of approval that they aren't using stolen tech. I imagine that puts the burden of proof of "stolen tech" on Google though, so they can't just make claims without evidence. Any attorneys want to confirm/correct my understanding?
- GeneralMayhem 9y ago
  I can't comment on the ins and outs of discovery, but I will point out that "Google" is inaccurate - the plaintiff is Waymo, which is a sibling company to Google.

That's my question. Given that Uber claims they weren't using the technology... how can you tell if they stopped? Just forbid them from using LIDAR altogether?

Analemma_ 9y ago
Waymo is allowed to look at the devices and supporting documentation and see if there is any stolen IP.
rotflmao 9y ago
Uber is allowed to continue working on and using LIDAR. The article has intentionally mislead you because Uber is every journalist's favorite boogeyman right now.
bdonlan 9y ago
Effectively this means that if they were using it, and they continue using it, they can add contempt of court to the list of potential charges I guess.
rhino369 9y ago
The judge could have gone that broad and issued a total injunction, but he purposely didn't. I've been involved in situations like this. The end result is likely the status quo. Both parties will fight over it more, of course. But if Uber says they don't have or use the documents, they'll just continue business as usual.
linkregister 9y ago
This is answered in the actual injunction document. Uber is required to perform a thorough accounting of any design aspects stemming from the trade secrets noted in Waymo's filing. Uber is required to interview all individuals who worked with Levandowski to circumvent Levandowski's usage of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination protections. If Uber can't compel the information the court seeks, it must use its full authority to obtain it. Judge Alsop explicitly says Uber must terminate any uncooperative employee. A Waymo attorney and an expert get to audit Uber's self-driving technology to identify aspects of the trade secrets annotated in Waymo's filing. The enforcement is that if Waymo's expert and attorney unearth any lack of compliance by Uber, they can face Contempt of Court charges. Since Waymo is pursuing this case zealously, I expect this to be enough incentive for Uber to follow the court order in good faith. In the past, Uber has complied with discovery motions even when the results embarrassed the company, e.g. the executive venting: about how he wishes he could dig up dirt to discredit a journalist.

phamilton 9y ago

As I understand it, Google is granted expedited discovery and Uber basically has to allow Google to give a stamp of approval that they aren't using stolen tech. I imagine that puts the burden of proof of "stolen tech" on Google though, so they can't just make claims without evidence. Any attorneys want to confirm/correct my understanding?

GeneralMayhem 9y ago
I can't comment on the ins and outs of discovery, but I will point out that "Google" is inaccurate - the plaintiff is Waymo, which is a sibling company to Google.