4 ms·

> "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 us

> "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
    - pfarnsworth 9y ago
      "Striking evidence" is just that. Evidence. I'll wait for the results of the hearing to see what the overall judgement is. Have you forgotten that all trials have evidence both for and against? But the evidence wasn't enough to issue a preliminary injunction, which means that there is no smoking gun. A preliminary injunction was issues against Levandowski, because as the judge said, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that he downloaded the files. Given the judge's decision, this injunction is a layup and pretty understandable. If the technology he allegedly stole made its way into Uber's technology, it would be an easy decision to give an injunction for Uber to stop development. But the judge even didn't issue a narrow injunction against any development in Lidar whatsoever. So that speaks volumes. Not winning a preliminary injunction is pretty huge.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
linkregister 9y ago
Instead of using the "code"-style formatting with four spaces, please use this format: * > If this is your conclusion, * // ^ remove the space between the asterisk and the text Those on mobile or who don't want to scroll far thank you.

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
  - pfarnsworth 9y ago
    "Striking evidence" is just that. Evidence. I'll wait for the results of the hearing to see what the overall judgement is. Have you forgotten that all trials have evidence both for and against? But the evidence wasn't enough to issue a preliminary injunction, which means that there is no smoking gun. A preliminary injunction was issues against Levandowski, because as the judge said, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that he downloaded the files. Given the judge's decision, this injunction is a layup and pretty understandable. If the technology he allegedly stole made its way into Uber's technology, it would be an easy decision to give an injunction for Uber to stop development. But the judge even didn't issue a narrow injunction against any development in Lidar whatsoever. So that speaks volumes. Not winning a preliminary injunction is pretty huge.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago

linkregister 9y ago

Instead of using the "code"-style formatting with four spaces, please use this format: * > If this is your conclusion, * // ^ remove the space between the asterisk and the text Those on mobile or who don't want to scroll far thank you.