3 ms·

Uber: Discovery shows Waymo has “zero evidence”

20 points by nwrk 9y ago

tzakrajs 9y ago
Wait.. Levandowski took files from Google as leverage in case they didn't pay him his bonus? What did he plan to do exactly? In what case does that ever make sense? One can't assume any ownership of or rights to the files whether or not Google pays them the bonus.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Yeah, the explanation doesn't make any sense. Even if he decided to release it to the public, that IP wasn't his to distribute, so he'd get sued out of the obscene $50m he had already been paid. At this point, I can't find a single course of action from Levandowski that would paint him in any good light at all.
clhodapp 9y ago
This is so strongly stated that if it comes to light that Uber did use Waymo's files at this point, they will have a very tough time weaselling out of it. They'd better be telling the truth or what little credibility they still have will go straight out the window.
hayd 9y ago
How does that explain how Uber copied the Lidar chip design? Wasn't that the original smoking gun which brought this all to light?
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  > Alsup also called Waymo’s claim of patent infringement “meritless,” and noted, with regard to trade secrets, that Waymo has “overreached, in attempting to claim ownership over general principles and approaches in the field.” https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/15/15640934/uber-waymo-lawsuit-self-driving-car-injunction-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/15/15640934/uber-waymo-lawsu... It seems clear that Levandowski did something but Waymo hasn't found any evidence that Uber did anything improper. > By granting Waymo permission to seek the return of its stolen documents, the judge also agreed with the Alphabet company “that at least some information from those files, if not the files themselves, has seeped into Uber’s own LIDAR development efforts.” Even so, he did not see enough evidence to completely block Uber from operating its LIDAR-equipped vehicles in the public. I don't know what he means by "at least some of the information", but it wasn't enough to stop Uber from continuing, which is confusing to me. Obviously the Judge didn't think whatever information that "seeped" into the development was significant enough otherwise he would have stopped Uber from continuing development.

20 points by nwrk 9y ago

Wait.. Levandowski took files from Google as leverage in case they didn't pay him his bonus? What did he plan to do exactly? In what case does that ever make sense? One can't assume any ownership of or rights to the files whether or not Google pays them the bonus.

dguaraglia 9y ago
Yeah, the explanation doesn't make any sense. Even if he decided to release it to the public, that IP wasn't his to distribute, so he'd get sued out of the obscene $50m he had already been paid. At this point, I can't find a single course of action from Levandowski that would paint him in any good light at all.

clhodapp 9y ago

This is so strongly stated that if it comes to light that Uber did use Waymo's files at this point, they will have a very tough time weaselling out of it. They'd better be telling the truth or what little credibility they still have will go straight out the window.

hayd 9y ago

How does that explain how Uber copied the Lidar chip design? Wasn't that the original smoking gun which brought this all to light?

pfarnsworth 9y ago
> Alsup also called Waymo’s claim of patent infringement “meritless,” and noted, with regard to trade secrets, that Waymo has “overreached, in attempting to claim ownership over general principles and approaches in the field.” https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/15/15640934/uber-waymo-lawsuit-self-driving-car-injunction-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/15/15640934/uber-waymo-lawsu... It seems clear that Levandowski did something but Waymo hasn't found any evidence that Uber did anything improper. > By granting Waymo permission to seek the return of its stolen documents, the judge also agreed with the Alphabet company “that at least some information from those files, if not the files themselves, has seeped into Uber’s own LIDAR development efforts.” Even so, he did not see enough evidence to completely block Uber from operating its LIDAR-equipped vehicles in the public. I don't know what he means by "at least some of the information", but it wasn't enough to stop Uber from continuing, which is confusing to me. Obviously the Judge didn't think whatever information that "seeped" into the development was significant enough otherwise he would have stopped Uber from continuing development.