5 ms·

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."

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."