3 ms·

"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

"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
    >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. Yes there was, that's what this document is. >A preliminary injunction was issues against Levandowski No, a preliminary injunction was issues against Uber preventing Levandowski from working on things. As far as the court is concerned, Levandowski isn't a party in this case. To be clear, this Order is an injunction against Uber, no one else. That's the way the court sees it (and this has been made pretty clear in prior arguments). There was enough evidence to issue a preliminary injunction against uber, just not one that required them to stop working on lidar completely. This is despite what Alsup says at the end of page 12, which I read as being the main reason (and again, alsup clearly states this in footnote six) that the injunctive relief isn't stronger. Or in other words, Alsup was, based on the evidence provided, willing to place a stronger injunction against Uber, but has not as a way to 'punish' Waymo for overreaching in some of its claims. I'd take some time to read section D. It pretty clearly explains all of this (basically, Waymo asked for the court to account for Adverse Interference to make a stronger judgement, and the court denied because Waymo was also misbehaving).
    - pfarnsworth 9y ago
      You're reading it wrong.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        That's a strong accusation to make without any kind of supporting anything.

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
  >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. Yes there was, that's what this document is. >A preliminary injunction was issues against Levandowski No, a preliminary injunction was issues against Uber preventing Levandowski from working on things. As far as the court is concerned, Levandowski isn't a party in this case. To be clear, this Order is an injunction against Uber, no one else. That's the way the court sees it (and this has been made pretty clear in prior arguments). There was enough evidence to issue a preliminary injunction against uber, just not one that required them to stop working on lidar completely. This is despite what Alsup says at the end of page 12, which I read as being the main reason (and again, alsup clearly states this in footnote six) that the injunctive relief isn't stronger. Or in other words, Alsup was, based on the evidence provided, willing to place a stronger injunction against Uber, but has not as a way to 'punish' Waymo for overreaching in some of its claims. I'd take some time to read section D. It pretty clearly explains all of this (basically, Waymo asked for the court to account for Adverse Interference to make a stronger judgement, and the court denied because Waymo was also misbehaving).
  - pfarnsworth 9y ago
    You're reading it wrong.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      That's a strong accusation to make without any kind of supporting anything.