3 ms·

I'm interpreting this differently than you are. It says nothing about trade secret _misuse_ but alsip does discuss trade secret theft, which is an important di

by tmh79 9y ago

I'm interpreting this differently than you are. It says nothing about trade secret _misuse_ but alsip does discuss trade secret theft, which is an important distinction. So far, there is no evidence that Uber has used any waymo trade secrets in their SDC program, and if there was any evidence the program would have been shut down BUT there is significant evidence that Levandowsky did steal a treasure trove of documents as he was on his way out the door. What the ruling does show is that Levandowsky is considered to be toxic, and will not be allowed to work at uber on any programs that he may have stolen trade secrets for. It is entirely possible that Levandowsky downloaded the 14k files for his use, but they never impacted the designs at uber, at least in a legally provable form. I am not familiar enough with case law in this arena to know the legal intricacies but my initial reaction is that, while uber is not off the hook, the potential damage they may receive as an outcome of this has has been reduced immensely (shut down entire program => remove head exec running program) when compared with the rhetoric before this injunction was released.

manyoso 9y ago
In the expedited discovery done so far Uber has claimed privilege for huge amounts of requested documents. If you read the order, the Judge is signaling that this isn't going to be allowed to continue. One of the reasons he turned down the adverse inference is basically that he expects discovery going forward to favor Waymo and the adverse inference question is not necessary to decide now. The ruling in general gives the definite impression that the Judge is very interested in seeing the evidence one way or another whether stolen tech was used by Uber and claims of privilege and 5th amendment will be greatly hindered going forward.

by tmh79 9y ago

manyoso 9y ago

In the expedited discovery done so far Uber has claimed privilege for huge amounts of requested documents. If you read the order, the Judge is signaling that this isn't going to be allowed to continue. One of the reasons he turned down the adverse inference is basically that he expects discovery going forward to favor Waymo and the adverse inference question is not necessary to decide now. The ruling in general gives the definite impression that the Judge is very interested in seeing the evidence one way or another whether stolen tech was used by Uber and claims of privilege and 5th amendment will be greatly hindered going forward.