4 ms·

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.

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."
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    "Again, that Fuji -- and, at least on the record, no other LiDAR -- copies specific GBr3 specifications is striking evidence suggesting that at least some evidence from Waymo's files has already found its way into Uber's Lidar designs." "At this stage, that is sufficient to extrapolate that at least some of the information in the 14,000-plus downloads likely qualifies for trade secret protection, and certain relief is warranted to prevent the misuse of those downloads as this litigation progresses." Note that these two quotes are about a separate way that the Fuji likely infringes on the GBr3. It really does seem like Alsup would have provided further relief if waymo hadn't been so broad in their claims of infringement (again, see footnote 6: "Waymo's inequitable conduct is factored into the relief granted herein") It seems to generally come down to this: "For similar reasons, this order also declines, at this stage, to enjoin Uber from using even the specific asserted trade secrets on which Waymo has shown serious questions going to the merits — i.e., Even a limited injunction as to these specific features would impose hardship on Uber’s overall LiDAR development that is disproportionate to Waymo’s limited showing of misappropriation by defendants thus far"
    - pfarnsworth 9y ago
      "likely infringes" is absolutely false. Your bias is showing. There's evidence. But not enough for a preliminary injunction, which is why there's going to be a trial. If there were a smoking gun, then they would have issues a preliminary injunction. And there hasn't even been a question as to whether or not these are trade secrets. That's part of the trial.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        1. A preliminary injunction was issued, just not a sweeping one 2. "is striking evidence" is a phrase that to me implies that the Uber lidar likely infringes, please explain if you disagree. 3. Speaking of bias, elsewhere in this thread you say "As far as I can tell from reading the injunction, there wasn't a single case of a trade secret from those documents making its way into Uber's technology." [0]. Given that Alsup believes that Waymo has demonstrated "striking evidence" to the contrary, will you revise that position? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14342469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14342469

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."
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  "Again, that Fuji -- and, at least on the record, no other LiDAR -- copies specific GBr3 specifications is striking evidence suggesting that at least some evidence from Waymo's files has already found its way into Uber's Lidar designs." "At this stage, that is sufficient to extrapolate that at least some of the information in the 14,000-plus downloads likely qualifies for trade secret protection, and certain relief is warranted to prevent the misuse of those downloads as this litigation progresses." Note that these two quotes are about a separate way that the Fuji likely infringes on the GBr3. It really does seem like Alsup would have provided further relief if waymo hadn't been so broad in their claims of infringement (again, see footnote 6: "Waymo's inequitable conduct is factored into the relief granted herein") It seems to generally come down to this: "For similar reasons, this order also declines, at this stage, to enjoin Uber from using even the specific asserted trade secrets on which Waymo has shown serious questions going to the merits — i.e., Even a limited injunction as to these specific features would impose hardship on Uber’s overall LiDAR development that is disproportionate to Waymo’s limited showing of misappropriation by defendants thus far"
  - pfarnsworth 9y ago
    "likely infringes" is absolutely false. Your bias is showing. There's evidence. But not enough for a preliminary injunction, which is why there's going to be a trial. If there were a smoking gun, then they would have issues a preliminary injunction. And there hasn't even been a question as to whether or not these are trade secrets. That's part of the trial.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      1. A preliminary injunction was issued, just not a sweeping one 2. "is striking evidence" is a phrase that to me implies that the Uber lidar likely infringes, please explain if you disagree. 3. Speaking of bias, elsewhere in this thread you say "As far as I can tell from reading the injunction, there wasn't a single case of a trade secret from those documents making its way into Uber's technology." [0]. Given that Alsup believes that Waymo has demonstrated "striking evidence" to the contrary, will you revise that position? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14342469 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14342469