3 ms·

>>It presumes Uber took technology from Waymo, which the judge rules against FTFA: "Judge William Alsup in San Francisco says in the ruling that Waymo has sho

>>It presumes Uber took technology from Waymo, which the judge rules against FTFA: "Judge William Alsup in San Francisco says in the ruling that Waymo has shown “compelling evidence” that a former star engineer named Anthony Levandowski downloaded confidential files before leaving Waymo. The Judge also says evidence shows that before he left Waymo, Levandowski and Uber planned for Uber to acquire a company formed by Levandowski."

megamindbrian 10y ago
Wow I didn't know there was more than one way to write Monte Carlo, Haar, Point-cloud algorithms. At what point does "hire an engineer to do something" become "common-knowledge"?
- joshuamorton 10y ago
  (am a googler) The accusation here is that Levandowski stole proprietary hardware designs, not algorithms. (well there was also an allegation that he stole "math" but alsup denied that)
eddieplan9 10y ago
And you can reasonably draw the conclusion that is a plot for stealing technology? It's perfectly reasonable to tell someone that, go make an MVP and we will acquire it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mannykannot 9y ago
  > It's perfectly reasonable to tell someone that, go make an MVP and we will acquire it. You have a point in general, but it is some of specifics of this case that raise doubts about whether that is the whole story.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
That isn't quite the same as "Uber took technology from Waymo", though. Levandowski took a bunch of stuff from Waymo. There seems to be very little doubt of that. Levandowski, while in possession of those documents, formed Otto. Uber bought Otto. Therefore, Uber bought a company that included a person who stole a bunch of documents from Waymo. Now: Did Uber get access to the documents? Did Levandowski not show them the documents, but just use the contents to give guidance/instructions/knowledge? Either of those would be "Uber taking the technology". Or did Levandowski just put those files away on a drive somewhere, and never use them while at Otto or Uber? I don't believe that for a minute, but it's possible (from the evidence so far).

megamindbrian 10y ago

Wow I didn't know there was more than one way to write Monte Carlo, Haar, Point-cloud algorithms. At what point does "hire an engineer to do something" become "common-knowledge"?

joshuamorton 10y ago
(am a googler) The accusation here is that Levandowski stole proprietary hardware designs, not algorithms. (well there was also an allegation that he stole "math" but alsup denied that)

eddieplan9 10y ago

And you can reasonably draw the conclusion that is a plot for stealing technology? It's perfectly reasonable to tell someone that, go make an MVP and we will acquire it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mannykannot 9y ago
> It's perfectly reasonable to tell someone that, go make an MVP and we will acquire it. You have a point in general, but it is some of specifics of this case that raise doubts about whether that is the whole story.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

That isn't quite the same as "Uber took technology from Waymo", though. Levandowski took a bunch of stuff from Waymo. There seems to be very little doubt of that. Levandowski, while in possession of those documents, formed Otto. Uber bought Otto. Therefore, Uber bought a company that included a person who stole a bunch of documents from Waymo. Now: Did Uber get access to the documents? Did Levandowski not show them the documents, but just use the contents to give guidance/instructions/knowledge? Either of those would be "Uber taking the technology". Or did Levandowski just put those files away on a drive somewhere, and never use them while at Otto or Uber? I don't believe that for a minute, but it's possible (from the evidence so far).