8 ms·

Judge blasts Waymo v. Uber lawyers, delays trial until December

201 points by aetherson 9y ago

aetherson 9y ago
A lot of commentators here were suggesting that the due diligence report was strong evidence for Waymo's case, but I think that Judge Alsup is strongly suggesting that it's not: they're still crucially missing evidence that supports the case that Levandowski's bad actions made it to Uber.
- imustbeevil 9y ago
  I mean if Uber can just openly destroy evidence yeah it's going to be hard to link them to a crime.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Who doesn't think they are? Their entire business is based on evading laws, regulations, and the people who enforce them.
    - diwu1989 9y ago
      Courts are based on facts, not popular opinions, and it's innocent until proven guilty. If there really was patent infringement, then it would be difficult to erase all traces. Similar to the Zenimax Oculus lawsuit where computers were erased, but the verdict still came down against Oculus.
      - awalton 9y ago
        > it's innocent until proven guilty Civil case. Preponderance of evidence is enough. And the defense standing over a shredder pushing stolen documents through, paying for the shredding of a hard drive in cash months after it was supposed to be done, delaying discovery and magically disappearing a boatload of files from a company already known publicly to act scummy looks a fucking lot like a preponderance of evidence. All Waymo needs to do is tell the story the way they see it to a jury - too many dots connect up perfectly. My guess is that the only reason this case is still going is that Uber can't come up with settlement terms (i.e. billions of dollars of cash) Waymo will accept.
      - joncrocks 9y ago
        It's important to note that whether something infringes on a Patent is in no way effected by the method of discovery. If I invent something and Patent it, you can independently invent it and you're still infringing on my Patent. Provenance is only important for Copyright and Trade Secrets. (I think. IANAL.)
    - jstanley 9y ago
      Their business is based on transporting people relatively short distances. All involved parties are consenting. That this is in violation of any laws or regulations is the true injustice.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        Lack of proper insurance has been a big issue with Uber, and someone that gets hit didn't consent. There are bad taxi laws out there, but the number of good taxi laws is not negligible.
        Karunamon 9y ago
        Does Uber not spring for insurance for all drivers when they’re actively transporting now?
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    Is this belief based on any knowledge of similarities of the alleged infringing product? Judge Alsup seem to disagree with you since the end product that Waymo sued Uber over seem very different: "Waymo alleged that Uber had stolen its trade secrets and had been violating four patents. Waymo had people signing, under oath, statements about how they could tell the patents had been violated. It's now turned out that the patent claims have completely vanished. They've been dropped. The expert you had was way out of bounds. There was no patent infringement. I think when Waymo got into this case, it thought it was going to go into the files and find an exact duplicate of the Waymo files. As it turns out, the product is dissimilar in a lot of ways. It may even be a vast improvement over what was going on Waymo. So they've come up short there."
- sjbase 9y ago
  Indeed, however he's also suggesting that said evidence is missing under very suspicious circumstances: > "That the most important witness in the case [Levandowski], somehow his own files got overlooked. That's very suspicious." Is he not implicating Uber in that, or at the very least Uber's legal counsel?
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Oh, yes. Yes, he is. And he's even more directly telling Uber's lead attorney in the case that he (Alsup) doesn't care what consequences he (the attorney) gets for playing stupid (and unethical) hide-the-document games during discovery, because those consequences are his own fault. Uber's behavior in this case has been one of three things: behavior of those who don't think the rules apply to them, behavior of those who are unaware of how badly the court can hurt them, or behavior of those who have something that they are desperate to hide.
  - aetherson 9y ago
    My read is that all of this bad behavior on the part of Levandowski (and Kalanick) and so forth will be extremely damaging if Google can come up with some kind of evidence that Uber is actually using some of its trade secrets. Like, if Uber had a prototype that was clearly very closely related to Google's prototype, then it would be very hard for Uber to credibly suggest that the similarities are just coincidence, that there was parallel evolution or something. But without a link to something that Uber actually produced or used, what Google has is an iron-clad case that Levandowski took their IP and acted like a douchebag, and an iron-clad case that Uber was at least retroactively aware of that, and very little case that Uber took their technology.
    - drawnwren 9y ago
      This case was started when Google discovered that Uber's Spider prototype was identical to an early Google lidar. It now appears that they haven't been using it primarily, but your hypothetical smoking gun is literally the foundation of this case.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  I would be stunned if it's OK for someone to have proprietary info all over their house and laptop and it's fine as long as you can't find those bits on other computers owned by their new employer.
  - sgift 9y ago
    I, on the other hand, would be stunned if I hired someone from my competitor (Absolutely okay in my book), they later find things he stole from his previous employer and then judge me for having them without needing to proof it.
    - dx034 9y ago
      The question is, if you find out about the trade secrets before you get sued, how far do you have to go? Do you have to fire the employee and will you have to report this to the other company? Or is it enough to not use the secrets?
- fnwx17 9y ago
  agreed, I think that's the point of the article - the grey area is very large here. Judge Alsup slapped both Uber and Waymo/Google over the wrist and "With that, Alsup got up and retired to his chambers." seems like a good character to have on "Sillicon Valley" for a bit of contrast
zymhan 9y ago
> "Well, you only need three of the lawyers over there to try this case," Alsup said, gesturing to Uber's table full of attorneys. "We will miss you greatly. I was looking forward to seeing you perform in this case. But next time, maybe you ought to produce the documents." Judge Alsup is a badass.
- icebraining 9y ago
  If he gets elevated to the Ninth Circuit and participates in hearings along with Judge Kozinski, the courts will need a burn unit on standby :)
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  Yes he is. I got a chance to sit in on his court during the Google/Oracle trial and felt confident that what ever outcome came out of the trial, he would not allow it to be sabotaged by silly lawyer gambits. If we could have 10 like him processing cases the world would be a more just place.
- redthrowaway 9y ago
  How is it that Alsup ended up with both of these high profile cases?
  - nraynaud 9y ago
    is just because he works in the area where tech companies have their headquarters?
    - diwu1989 9y ago
      Yes, it defines the venue for civil cases.
    - theduncan 9y ago
      Also Judges can request cases, and it might be that since he understands what the tech mumbo jumbo is, he got the case.
azylman 9y ago
> "When this case started, Waymo had a strong case against Levandowski," Alsup said. "But it didn't sue Levandowski; it sued Uber." > He continued: > "Waymo alleged that Uber had stolen its trade secrets and had been violating four patents. Waymo had people signing, under oath, statements about how they could tell the patents had been violated. It's now turned out that the patent claims have completely vanished. They've been dropped. The expert you had was way out of bounds. There was no patent infringement. I think when Waymo got into this case, it thought it was going to go into the files and find an exact duplicate of the Waymo files. As it turns out, the product is dissimilar in a lot of ways. It may even be a vast improvement over what was going on Waymo. So they've come up short there." Not looking good for Waymo...
- QAPereo 9y ago
  On the other hand his displeasure with the discovery process as handled by Uber is not what you want to hear from a judge, if you’re Uber.
  - cpitman 9y ago
    What does that lead to? Contempt of court?
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      That’s definitely possible, but would be pretty devestating too. That would probably only be employed if the judge believed that the evidence was being withheld, not destroyed. If magically evidence of said destruction ever came to light however? Prison.
    - mark212 9y ago
      The judge can impose sanctions for discovery violations up to and including entering judgment in favor of the other side. That’s pretty extreme but an issue sanction wouldn’t be unusual or (from what this article says) unwarranted.
- fictionfuture 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
smnrchrds 9y ago
> Levandowski, who is not a defendant in the case, hasn't answered questions about the allegations, instead pleading the Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal proceedings, not civil case. How can he refuse to answer questions based on the Fifth?
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  I imagine he is saying that he would have to confess a crime if he answers that question. But IANAL and everything.
- tantalor 9y ago
  > Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal proceedings No. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/178/does-the-us-fifth-amendment-only-apply-to-criminal-trials-do-any-laws-protect-a https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/178/does-the-us-fift...
- btilly 9y ago
  The Fifth Amendment applies to statements which could conceivably show up in a future criminal proceeding. Here is a more precise statement of the principle: A witness has traditionally been able to claim the privilege in any proceeding whatsoever in which testimony is legally required when his answer might be used against him in that proceeding or in a future criminal proceeding or when it might be exploited to uncover other evidence against him. And for references see http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation07.html#f177 http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation07.html...
  - euyyn 9y ago
    What mechanism prevents people from applying it all the time in all cases, referring to potential "future criminal proceedings"?
    - btilly 9y ago
      If the judge gets suspicious, you'll have to explain the potential issue to him off the record. After that you can only continue to say it if the judge thinks that you have a potential reason for worry. But they err on the side of respecting it. That said, a defendant who pleads the fifth at all questions will not necessarily help their case...
bogomipz 9y ago
Can someone more familiar with the case say what is the "Stroz report"?

201 points by aetherson 9y ago

A lot of commentators here were suggesting that the due diligence report was strong evidence for Waymo's case, but I think that Judge Alsup is strongly suggesting that it's not: they're still crucially missing evidence that supports the case that Levandowski's bad actions made it to Uber.

imustbeevil 9y ago
I mean if Uber can just openly destroy evidence yeah it's going to be hard to link them to a crime.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Who doesn't think they are? Their entire business is based on evading laws, regulations, and the people who enforce them.
  - diwu1989 9y ago
    Courts are based on facts, not popular opinions, and it's innocent until proven guilty. If there really was patent infringement, then it would be difficult to erase all traces. Similar to the Zenimax Oculus lawsuit where computers were erased, but the verdict still came down against Oculus.
    - awalton 9y ago
      > it's innocent until proven guilty Civil case. Preponderance of evidence is enough. And the defense standing over a shredder pushing stolen documents through, paying for the shredding of a hard drive in cash months after it was supposed to be done, delaying discovery and magically disappearing a boatload of files from a company already known publicly to act scummy looks a fucking lot like a preponderance of evidence. All Waymo needs to do is tell the story the way they see it to a jury - too many dots connect up perfectly. My guess is that the only reason this case is still going is that Uber can't come up with settlement terms (i.e. billions of dollars of cash) Waymo will accept.
    - joncrocks 9y ago
      It's important to note that whether something infringes on a Patent is in no way effected by the method of discovery. If I invent something and Patent it, you can independently invent it and you're still infringing on my Patent. Provenance is only important for Copyright and Trade Secrets. (I think. IANAL.)
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Their business is based on transporting people relatively short distances. All involved parties are consenting. That this is in violation of any laws or regulations is the true injustice.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      Lack of proper insurance has been a big issue with Uber, and someone that gets hit didn't consent. There are bad taxi laws out there, but the number of good taxi laws is not negligible.
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        Does Uber not spring for insurance for all drivers when they’re actively transporting now?
- asabjorn 9y ago
  Is this belief based on any knowledge of similarities of the alleged infringing product? Judge Alsup seem to disagree with you since the end product that Waymo sued Uber over seem very different: "Waymo alleged that Uber had stolen its trade secrets and had been violating four patents. Waymo had people signing, under oath, statements about how they could tell the patents had been violated. It's now turned out that the patent claims have completely vanished. They've been dropped. The expert you had was way out of bounds. There was no patent infringement. I think when Waymo got into this case, it thought it was going to go into the files and find an exact duplicate of the Waymo files. As it turns out, the product is dissimilar in a lot of ways. It may even be a vast improvement over what was going on Waymo. So they've come up short there."
sjbase 9y ago
Indeed, however he's also suggesting that said evidence is missing under very suspicious circumstances: > "That the most important witness in the case [Levandowski], somehow his own files got overlooked. That's very suspicious." Is he not implicating Uber in that, or at the very least Uber's legal counsel?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Oh, yes. Yes, he is. And he's even more directly telling Uber's lead attorney in the case that he (Alsup) doesn't care what consequences he (the attorney) gets for playing stupid (and unethical) hide-the-document games during discovery, because those consequences are his own fault. Uber's behavior in this case has been one of three things: behavior of those who don't think the rules apply to them, behavior of those who are unaware of how badly the court can hurt them, or behavior of those who have something that they are desperate to hide.
- aetherson 9y ago
  My read is that all of this bad behavior on the part of Levandowski (and Kalanick) and so forth will be extremely damaging if Google can come up with some kind of evidence that Uber is actually using some of its trade secrets. Like, if Uber had a prototype that was clearly very closely related to Google's prototype, then it would be very hard for Uber to credibly suggest that the similarities are just coincidence, that there was parallel evolution or something. But without a link to something that Uber actually produced or used, what Google has is an iron-clad case that Levandowski took their IP and acted like a douchebag, and an iron-clad case that Uber was at least retroactively aware of that, and very little case that Uber took their technology.
  - drawnwren 9y ago
    This case was started when Google discovered that Uber's Spider prototype was identical to an early Google lidar. It now appears that they haven't been using it primarily, but your hypothetical smoking gun is literally the foundation of this case.
greglindahl 9y ago
I would be stunned if it's OK for someone to have proprietary info all over their house and laptop and it's fine as long as you can't find those bits on other computers owned by their new employer.
- sgift 9y ago
  I, on the other hand, would be stunned if I hired someone from my competitor (Absolutely okay in my book), they later find things he stole from his previous employer and then judge me for having them without needing to proof it.
  - dx034 9y ago
    The question is, if you find out about the trade secrets before you get sued, how far do you have to go? Do you have to fire the employee and will you have to report this to the other company? Or is it enough to not use the secrets?
fnwx17 9y ago
agreed, I think that's the point of the article - the grey area is very large here. Judge Alsup slapped both Uber and Waymo/Google over the wrist and "With that, Alsup got up and retired to his chambers." seems like a good character to have on "Sillicon Valley" for a bit of contrast

zymhan 9y ago

> "Well, you only need three of the lawyers over there to try this case," Alsup said, gesturing to Uber's table full of attorneys. "We will miss you greatly. I was looking forward to seeing you perform in this case. But next time, maybe you ought to produce the documents." Judge Alsup is a badass.

icebraining 9y ago
If he gets elevated to the Ninth Circuit and participates in hearings along with Judge Kozinski, the courts will need a burn unit on standby :)
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Yes he is. I got a chance to sit in on his court during the Google/Oracle trial and felt confident that what ever outcome came out of the trial, he would not allow it to be sabotaged by silly lawyer gambits. If we could have 10 like him processing cases the world would be a more just place.
redthrowaway 9y ago
How is it that Alsup ended up with both of these high profile cases?
- nraynaud 9y ago
  is just because he works in the area where tech companies have their headquarters?
  - diwu1989 9y ago
    Yes, it defines the venue for civil cases.
  - theduncan 9y ago
    Also Judges can request cases, and it might be that since he understands what the tech mumbo jumbo is, he got the case.

azylman 9y ago

> "When this case started, Waymo had a strong case against Levandowski," Alsup said. "But it didn't sue Levandowski; it sued Uber." > He continued: > "Waymo alleged that Uber had stolen its trade secrets and had been violating four patents. Waymo had people signing, under oath, statements about how they could tell the patents had been violated. It's now turned out that the patent claims have completely vanished. They've been dropped. The expert you had was way out of bounds. There was no patent infringement. I think when Waymo got into this case, it thought it was going to go into the files and find an exact duplicate of the Waymo files. As it turns out, the product is dissimilar in a lot of ways. It may even be a vast improvement over what was going on Waymo. So they've come up short there." Not looking good for Waymo...

QAPereo 9y ago
On the other hand his displeasure with the discovery process as handled by Uber is not what you want to hear from a judge, if you’re Uber.
- cpitman 9y ago
  What does that lead to? Contempt of court?
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    That’s definitely possible, but would be pretty devestating too. That would probably only be employed if the judge believed that the evidence was being withheld, not destroyed. If magically evidence of said destruction ever came to light however? Prison.
  - mark212 9y ago
    The judge can impose sanctions for discovery violations up to and including entering judgment in favor of the other side. That’s pretty extreme but an issue sanction wouldn’t be unusual or (from what this article says) unwarranted.
fictionfuture 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

smnrchrds 9y ago

> Levandowski, who is not a defendant in the case, hasn't answered questions about the allegations, instead pleading the Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal proceedings, not civil case. How can he refuse to answer questions based on the Fifth?

marcosdumay 9y ago
I imagine he is saying that he would have to confess a crime if he answers that question. But IANAL and everything.
tantalor 9y ago
> Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal proceedings No. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/178/does-the-us-fifth-amendment-only-apply-to-criminal-trials-do-any-laws-protect-a https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/178/does-the-us-fift...
btilly 9y ago
The Fifth Amendment applies to statements which could conceivably show up in a future criminal proceeding. Here is a more precise statement of the principle: A witness has traditionally been able to claim the privilege in any proceeding whatsoever in which testimony is legally required when his answer might be used against him in that proceeding or in a future criminal proceeding or when it might be exploited to uncover other evidence against him. And for references see http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation07.html#f177 http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation07.html...
- euyyn 9y ago
  What mechanism prevents people from applying it all the time in all cases, referring to potential "future criminal proceedings"?
  - btilly 9y ago
    If the judge gets suspicious, you'll have to explain the potential issue to him off the record. After that you can only continue to say it if the judge thinks that you have a potential reason for worry. But they err on the side of respecting it. That said, a defendant who pleads the fifth at all questions will not necessarily help their case...

bogomipz 9y ago

Can someone more familiar with the case say what is the "Stroz report"?