4 ms·

The article relaying the whole communication has been published: http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Waymo-case-Dramatic-turn-as-judge-says-Uber-1

The article relaying the whole communication has been published: http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Waymo-case-Dramatic-turn-as-judge-says-Uber-12388930.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Waymo-case-... > The unit acquired leaked code from competitors via Github, dug up information on overseas drivers and researched global competitors, he said. While he didn’t believe that work was illegal, “I had questions about the ethics of it,” Jacobs testified. > Tactics included use of attorney-client privilege on written documents, and encrypted, ephemeral communications. > It also used “non-attributable devices” to communicate with third parties providing on-the-ground intelligence about threats to Uber, and to research Uber protestors, he testified.

vkou 9y ago
> The unit acquired leaked code from competitors via Github, dug up information on overseas drivers and researched global competitors, he said. While he didn’t believe that work was illegal, “I had questions about the ethics of it,” Jacobs testified. Fair point... But I'm not sure this has any bearing on Waymo vs Uber. This can, however, expose them to all sorts of patent litigation from the parties whose code they looked at. > Tactics included use of attorney-client privilege on written documents, and encrypted, ephemeral communications. I'm not sure about the former, but the latter is SOP at any company that has a legal department and regulatory concerns. > It also used “non-attributable devices” to communicate with third parties providing on-the-ground intelligence about threats to Uber, and to research Uber protestors, he testified. Shady shit, but not sure what bearing this has on Waymo vs Uber.
- revelation 9y ago
  You don't understand. The problem is the letter itself, not even necessarily what it says. The letter should have been handed over as part of discovery. It wasn't. It only came to the judge through an independent case.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    And therefore, since Waymo just now finds out about this, they get more time to see if there's anything in this that affects their case. And Uber has nobody to blame but themselves for the delay.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Too late to edit my other reply. But I want to add a correction here. If I understand correctly, it didn't come to the judge through an independent case. It came to the judge because the judge referred the situation (Uber hiring Levandowski after Levandowski took documents from Waymo) to federal prosecutors. Those federal prosecutors got back to the judge with stuff that Uber should have turned over as part of discovery, but didn't. The judge is not amused.

vkou 9y ago

> The unit acquired leaked code from competitors via Github, dug up information on overseas drivers and researched global competitors, he said. While he didn’t believe that work was illegal, “I had questions about the ethics of it,” Jacobs testified. Fair point... But I'm not sure this has any bearing on Waymo vs Uber. This can, however, expose them to all sorts of patent litigation from the parties whose code they looked at. > Tactics included use of attorney-client privilege on written documents, and encrypted, ephemeral communications. I'm not sure about the former, but the latter is SOP at any company that has a legal department and regulatory concerns. > It also used “non-attributable devices” to communicate with third parties providing on-the-ground intelligence about threats to Uber, and to research Uber protestors, he testified. Shady shit, but not sure what bearing this has on Waymo vs Uber.

revelation 9y ago
You don't understand. The problem is the letter itself, not even necessarily what it says. The letter should have been handed over as part of discovery. It wasn't. It only came to the judge through an independent case.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  And therefore, since Waymo just now finds out about this, they get more time to see if there's anything in this that affects their case. And Uber has nobody to blame but themselves for the delay.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Too late to edit my other reply. But I want to add a correction here. If I understand correctly, it didn't come to the judge through an independent case. It came to the judge because the judge referred the situation (Uber hiring Levandowski after Levandowski took documents from Waymo) to federal prosecutors. Those federal prosecutors got back to the judge with stuff that Uber should have turned over as part of discovery, but didn't. The judge is not amused.