4 ms·

I don't really understand how damages claims work. Can someone shed some light? No company has made any money off self driving cars. Google/Waymo has definitely

by acchow 9y ago

I don't really understand how damages claims work. Can someone shed some light? No company has made any money off self driving cars. Google/Waymo has definitely not. How can they demonstrate damages?

hackunomatter 9y ago
I think, basically, Uber will pay some $$$ to make the lawsuit go away and "license" Waymo's tech (which they already had, courtesy Mr. Lewandowski, but now will legally have it).
- bykovich2 9y ago
  You don't think Google's out for blood? Didn't they announce a Waymo partnership with Lyft a couple of weeks ago?
  - hackunomatter 9y ago
    Google owns a chunk of Uber, so I'm not sure they'd want to wipe out their investment?
    - acchow 9y ago
      Yeah, doesn't Google have something like a 6.7% stake in Uber? Even with share diluation by half, at a $60bn valuation that's still $2bn. Do we really think Google can win much more than $2bn in this Waymo lawsuit?
      - scott_karana 9y ago
        That valuation is predicated on Uber still being worth that much, if they end up guilty in criminal proceedings (for example).
  - ianamartin 9y ago
    I agree. Google doesn't want a license agreement. As pointed out below, yes, there is investment, but I think Google/Alphabet is out for blood and the investment dollars will be recouped in the civil settlement if not the arbitration with Levandowski. Either way, I don't think Google cares. They want to be first on the market. And based on how badly Uber has been flouting the law, I suspect Google gets there first no matter what. This just slows Uber down. It won't matter though. Money will change hands. And that's about it. Google/Alphabet/Waymo/Lyft will be first to market in a pretty shitty way, followed by Uber. The tech world and early adopters will go nuts and in this case probably die in a fire. Then Apple and Tesla will come in with a far superior safety/user experience and take over. None of this really matters at this point. It's a waiting game. This is what Apple always does and what Tesla has started doing: wait for the early entries in the market to do their thing, learn from their mistakes, and pwn the market later with better UX and marketing.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      I don't think that's the whole story. If Google would let it be known that you can take a bunch of IP and walk out the front door to a competitor that would be a very expensive signal. So for them this is as much about this concrete case as it is about how Google will deal with situation where their IP grows legs.
    - euyyn 9y ago
      > Early adopters will [...] probably die in a fire. Then [...] Tesla will come in with a far superior safety [...] and take over. Well, for the moment, the record is exactly the opposite of that prediction.
dboreham 9y ago
With lawyers?
madamelic 9y ago
(Months of how much of a headstart they had * monthly cost of licensing their tech after it is finished) That is how I would calculate it...
DannyBee 9y ago
It varies from claim to claim. There are multiple types of damages for multiple claim types. You'd have to be more specific :) In general, "actual" damages are not the only thing in the world. If all you ever could get were "actual" damages, it would almost always be more efficient to breach contracts :)
tannhauser23 9y ago
Traditionally, damages in trade secret cases are calculated according to three metrics: * Actual loss: the amount that the victim company lost in sales, customers, etc. because another company stole its trade secret. Here this is probably zero, since there are no self-driving cars in the market. (Although who knows, maybe Waymo lost partnership opportunities with large automakers to Uber) * Reasonable royalties: hypothetically, if Uber licensed the allegedly stolen tech from Waymo, how much would they have paid? * Unjust enrichment: benefit the Bad Guy got from the Bad Act(s), for example the amount of R&D that it didn't have to spend because it just shortcut the process. Plus, in California, there's punitive damages available for twice the amount of damages. Which, if the facts are anything like what's alleged, Waymo will get. The numbers add up fast.
perlgeek 9y ago
If Waymo can indeed prove that the stolen IP was a major motivation for the Otto acquisition, then the monetary value of that acquisition is a lower bound for the value of the stolen IP. A lower bound, because when a company acquires another company, it expects an ROI > 1. In the end, in a lawsuit like this, you must come up with an economic model that quantifies the damage, and must convince the judge (or jury, or whoever awards the damage claims) to accept it. So it's also a question of psychology. If you can show that an action was morally outrageous, you have a better chance to get awarded a higher damage claim.

by acchow 9y ago

I don't really understand how damages claims work. Can someone shed some light? No company has made any money off self driving cars. Google/Waymo has definitely not. How can they demonstrate damages?

hackunomatter 9y ago

I think, basically, Uber will pay some $$$ to make the lawsuit go away and "license" Waymo's tech (which they already had, courtesy Mr. Lewandowski, but now will legally have it).

bykovich2 9y ago
You don't think Google's out for blood? Didn't they announce a Waymo partnership with Lyft a couple of weeks ago?
- hackunomatter 9y ago
  Google owns a chunk of Uber, so I'm not sure they'd want to wipe out their investment?
  - acchow 9y ago
    Yeah, doesn't Google have something like a 6.7% stake in Uber? Even with share diluation by half, at a $60bn valuation that's still $2bn. Do we really think Google can win much more than $2bn in this Waymo lawsuit?
    - scott_karana 9y ago
      That valuation is predicated on Uber still being worth that much, if they end up guilty in criminal proceedings (for example).
- ianamartin 9y ago
  I agree. Google doesn't want a license agreement. As pointed out below, yes, there is investment, but I think Google/Alphabet is out for blood and the investment dollars will be recouped in the civil settlement if not the arbitration with Levandowski. Either way, I don't think Google cares. They want to be first on the market. And based on how badly Uber has been flouting the law, I suspect Google gets there first no matter what. This just slows Uber down. It won't matter though. Money will change hands. And that's about it. Google/Alphabet/Waymo/Lyft will be first to market in a pretty shitty way, followed by Uber. The tech world and early adopters will go nuts and in this case probably die in a fire. Then Apple and Tesla will come in with a far superior safety/user experience and take over. None of this really matters at this point. It's a waiting game. This is what Apple always does and what Tesla has started doing: wait for the early entries in the market to do their thing, learn from their mistakes, and pwn the market later with better UX and marketing.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    I don't think that's the whole story. If Google would let it be known that you can take a bunch of IP and walk out the front door to a competitor that would be a very expensive signal. So for them this is as much about this concrete case as it is about how Google will deal with situation where their IP grows legs.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    > Early adopters will [...] probably die in a fire. Then [...] Tesla will come in with a far superior safety [...] and take over. Well, for the moment, the record is exactly the opposite of that prediction.

dboreham 9y ago

With lawyers?

madamelic 9y ago

(Months of how much of a headstart they had * monthly cost of licensing their tech after it is finished) That is how I would calculate it...

DannyBee 9y ago

It varies from claim to claim. There are multiple types of damages for multiple claim types. You'd have to be more specific :) In general, "actual" damages are not the only thing in the world. If all you ever could get were "actual" damages, it would almost always be more efficient to breach contracts :)

tannhauser23 9y ago

Traditionally, damages in trade secret cases are calculated according to three metrics: * Actual loss: the amount that the victim company lost in sales, customers, etc. because another company stole its trade secret. Here this is probably zero, since there are no self-driving cars in the market. (Although who knows, maybe Waymo lost partnership opportunities with large automakers to Uber) * Reasonable royalties: hypothetically, if Uber licensed the allegedly stolen tech from Waymo, how much would they have paid? * Unjust enrichment: benefit the Bad Guy got from the Bad Act(s), for example the amount of R&D that it didn't have to spend because it just shortcut the process. Plus, in California, there's punitive damages available for twice the amount of damages. Which, if the facts are anything like what's alleged, Waymo will get. The numbers add up fast.

perlgeek 9y ago

If Waymo can indeed prove that the stolen IP was a major motivation for the Otto acquisition, then the monetary value of that acquisition is a lower bound for the value of the stolen IP. A lower bound, because when a company acquires another company, it expects an ROI > 1. In the end, in a lawsuit like this, you must come up with an economic model that quantifies the damage, and must convince the judge (or jury, or whoever awards the damage claims) to accept it. So it's also a question of psychology. If you can show that an action was morally outrageous, you have a better chance to get awarded a higher damage claim.