3 ms·
You could also look at it through a different lens. It seems that the scope of possible harm has been reduced from "everyone must stop working on SDCs" to "mayb
by tmh79 9y ago
You could also look at it through a different lens. It seems that the scope of possible harm has been reduced from "everyone must stop working on SDCs" to "maybe you might need to let the Levandowsky guy go, and stop making your own lidar".
Also, from what I understand, the real benefit to uber was from Levandowsky bringing 100 former google eng with him to bootstrap uber SDC project. Well, those 100 eng are at uber now, or maybe they've moved on, but point being the damage is done, and you can't undo that.
Waymo wants uber SDC shut down, they feel robbed, and anything less than that in their view is not justice.
- manyoso 9y ago"It seems that the scope of possible harm has been reduced..." The Judge specifically says in the ruling that a much stronger injunction can come at any point right up to the start of trial if Google is able to find additional evidence in the new discovery he is ordering. My read of the ruling is that the Judge expects that Google is likely to find just such evidence in the discovery he is newly ordering.