4 ms·

You either didn't read the injunction carefully, or you didn't understand it. It's a pretty huge win for Uber. They don't need to stop working on self-driving

You either didn't read the injunction carefully, or you didn't understand it. It's a pretty huge win for Uber. They don't need to stop working on self-driving cars at all. They just need to ensure Levandowski doesn't work on anything Lidar related, which he already doesn't. The only thing that is potentially a problem for Uber is that they need to use whatever methods to compel Levandowski to hand over the 14,000 documents. If he doesn't, I think the judge's ruling means that they need to fire him, which means the $250,000,000 they paid him goes up in smoke.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
joshuamorton 9y ago
(Disclosure: I work at google) You're ignoring a big part of this though: Waymo is given expedited discovery and is allowed to look at Uber's hardware. The injunction says that Uber cannot use Levandowski or any of the work he brought, and so Google['s expert] is allowed to look at Uber's hardware and make sure that none of it is based on the stolen documents. On the assumption that waymo's claims are true (ie. Uber is basing their work on stolen proprietary designs), this is a major blow to Uber, since they would need to redesign their lidar hardware from the ground up.
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  Read the injunction. They already went through the design. The judge didn't issue an injunction against using or even continuing development on Uber's Lidar. What more do you expect to find? If Waymo found a design during expedited discovery that is different from what they submitted to the judge, then I assume that is perjury and obviously needs to be punished to the full extent of the law. I doubt this will happen because everyone knows what's at stake here.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    I did. The injunction states that the Fuji lidar may be infringing on trade secrets, the court can't rule and is unwilling got make a prelim injunction, telling Uber to chuck it off a cliff, but will allow expert analysis to confirm. The problem is that Waymo made some overbroad claims and so Alsup is punishing them for it by making the injunciton weaker (and he states as much in footnote 6). That's also what is covered in part 6 of the injunction relief. They are granted additional depositions and analysis of "schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails" regarding lidar. In fact, reading the trade secret infringement part, it reads as though there's no question that levandowski stole documents and that those documents were used to create Uber's lidar using proprietary information from Google. That doesn't bode well. Edit: Or in other words, Alsup's questions aren't whether or not proprietary info was stolen, but whether or not it is still being actively used.
    - tmh79 9y ago
      that last edit you made is a very important distinction, and as far as I understand, the future of the case more or less hinges on waymos ability to prove that stolen info made its way into designs. Its entirely possible that Levandowsky stole some documents intending to use them for a nefarious purpose, but the influence/info from those documents never made it into uber Lidar, at least in a provable way.
    - pfarnsworth 9y ago
      > "In fact, reading the trade secret infringement part, it reads as though there's no question that levandowski stole documents and that those documents were used to create Uber's lidar using proprietary information from Google." If this is your conclusion, then I think you misread what the injunction said. The point of the expedited discovery is to figure out whether or not the documents were used by Uber. The idea that there is "no question" that the documents were used is false. "Finally, as to whether Uber has used any information enumerated inWaymo’s list of trade secrets, that is the main question on the instant motion. Accordingly,Waymo has received expedited discovery — including an inspection of defendants’ LiDAR devices, document production, and depositions of defendants’ engineers and experts — to shed light on the answer. Insofar as Waymo still falls short of showing use as to certain asserted trade secrets, this order declines to fill the gap with adverse inferences at this stage." The injunction says that there are "serious questions" but definitely not enough to deserve a preliminary injunction. "That being said, Waymo has shown at least serious questions going to the merits concerning whether some information within the 14,000-plus downloaded files has been used by defendants and qualifies for trade secret protection" Again, this is just "serious questions" but there is no smoking gun, and the point of the trial. And don't forget that even the judge says that the discovery could turn up nothing. "Further discovery may ultimately disprove even Waymo’s revised position that <redacted> is not generally known and economically valuable in the field."
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Remember, though, that this is just a preliminary injunction. Waymo could get considerably more as the case goes on, they're just going to have to work harder to get it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

joshuamorton 9y ago

(Disclosure: I work at google) You're ignoring a big part of this though: Waymo is given expedited discovery and is allowed to look at Uber's hardware. The injunction says that Uber cannot use Levandowski or any of the work he brought, and so Google['s expert] is allowed to look at Uber's hardware and make sure that none of it is based on the stolen documents. On the assumption that waymo's claims are true (ie. Uber is basing their work on stolen proprietary designs), this is a major blow to Uber, since they would need to redesign their lidar hardware from the ground up.

pfarnsworth 9y ago
Read the injunction. They already went through the design. The judge didn't issue an injunction against using or even continuing development on Uber's Lidar. What more do you expect to find? If Waymo found a design during expedited discovery that is different from what they submitted to the judge, then I assume that is perjury and obviously needs to be punished to the full extent of the law. I doubt this will happen because everyone knows what's at stake here.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  I did. The injunction states that the Fuji lidar may be infringing on trade secrets, the court can't rule and is unwilling got make a prelim injunction, telling Uber to chuck it off a cliff, but will allow expert analysis to confirm. The problem is that Waymo made some overbroad claims and so Alsup is punishing them for it by making the injunciton weaker (and he states as much in footnote 6). That's also what is covered in part 6 of the injunction relief. They are granted additional depositions and analysis of "schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails" regarding lidar. In fact, reading the trade secret infringement part, it reads as though there's no question that levandowski stole documents and that those documents were used to create Uber's lidar using proprietary information from Google. That doesn't bode well. Edit: Or in other words, Alsup's questions aren't whether or not proprietary info was stolen, but whether or not it is still being actively used.
  - tmh79 9y ago
    that last edit you made is a very important distinction, and as far as I understand, the future of the case more or less hinges on waymos ability to prove that stolen info made its way into designs. Its entirely possible that Levandowsky stole some documents intending to use them for a nefarious purpose, but the influence/info from those documents never made it into uber Lidar, at least in a provable way.
  - pfarnsworth 9y ago
    > "In fact, reading the trade secret infringement part, it reads as though there's no question that levandowski stole documents and that those documents were used to create Uber's lidar using proprietary information from Google." If this is your conclusion, then I think you misread what the injunction said. The point of the expedited discovery is to figure out whether or not the documents were used by Uber. The idea that there is "no question" that the documents were used is false. "Finally, as to whether Uber has used any information enumerated inWaymo’s list of trade secrets, that is the main question on the instant motion. Accordingly,Waymo has received expedited discovery — including an inspection of defendants’ LiDAR devices, document production, and depositions of defendants’ engineers and experts — to shed light on the answer. Insofar as Waymo still falls short of showing use as to certain asserted trade secrets, this order declines to fill the gap with adverse inferences at this stage." The injunction says that there are "serious questions" but definitely not enough to deserve a preliminary injunction. "That being said, Waymo has shown at least serious questions going to the merits concerning whether some information within the 14,000-plus downloaded files has been used by defendants and qualifies for trade secret protection" Again, this is just "serious questions" but there is no smoking gun, and the point of the trial. And don't forget that even the judge says that the discovery could turn up nothing. "Further discovery may ultimately disprove even Waymo’s revised position that <redacted> is not generally known and economically valuable in the field."

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Remember, though, that this is just a preliminary injunction. Waymo could get considerably more as the case goes on, they're just going to have to work harder to get it.