5 ms·

If Uber is found to have stolen trade secrets, how large is the judgment against them likely to be? Is it based on some multiple of the cost of the research th

If Uber is found to have stolen trade secrets, how large is the judgment against them likely to be? Is it based on some multiple of the cost of the research that produced those secrets? Or the market value of those secrets?

thisisit 9y ago
I guess similar to how royalty payment suits are settled.
- DannyB2 9y ago
  If it was a secret driving sauce, like the Coke formula, maybe the owner of that secret isn't interested in licensing it for royalties.
  - jhall1468 9y ago
    In which case they get an injunction and Uber can't use the tech or the fruits of it. They'd be screwed as far as self-driving is concerned.
- rhino369 9y ago
  A royalty is an option, but the court could also award Google's lost profits or Ubers ill-gotten gains. Or both.
fixermark 9y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the worst thing that could happen would be that Uber would be forbidden from using the stolen technology or its fruits. ... which would basically be akin to telling them "Get out of the self-driving vehicle business."
- mikejb 9y ago
  That is the worst that can come out of this case - and it would be a critical hit for Uber. Self-driving will be a big aspect of the future (how long that future's away is a different discussion), but once self-driving cars are here, what would Uber's business be? Kalanick himself said this: "If we are not tied for first, then the person who is in first, or the entity that's in first, then rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far cheaper or far higher-quality than Uber's, then Uber is no longer a thing" OTOH, Alsup (the judge in this case) recommended to look into a criminal investigation against Uber, which seems to be in progress considering that is what lead to the Jacob's letter in Alsup's hands. That potential investigation could have worse impact than just "don't do self-driving cars". Depending on the verdict, it could lead to anything between nothing to prison time for numerous executives to the point that the company itself would struggle to survive.
  - pitaj 9y ago
    > struggle to survive it probably would result in Uber being acquired
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Also not a lawyer. >would be that Uber would be forbidden from using the stolen technology or its fruits No, that's pretty much already happened as part of the preliminary injunction. Uber has so far argued that insofar as Levandowski had and may have used trade secrets, they never made it into any production vehicles, and so firing Levandowski meets that bar. If Google wins the lawsuit, there are probably damages to be had. In addition to saying "no, stop using this or any of its fruits", my understanding is that the court can order Uber to pay Google for the advantages it god. In other words, if the trade secrets advanced Uber's autonomous vehicle initiatives by a year, they might be liable for a year's worth of autonomous vehicle R&D costs, and also need to start over from not having any trade secrets.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > No, that's pretty much already happened as part of the preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction goes away with (or before) final resolution of the case (though it may, at that time, be replaced with a permanent injunction.)
bitmapbrother 9y ago
I believe Waymo is asking for 1.8 billion in damages. They were asking 1 billion to settle. Ultimately, though, it's up to the jury to award damages if they find for Waymo.

thisisit 9y ago

I guess similar to how royalty payment suits are settled.

DannyB2 9y ago
If it was a secret driving sauce, like the Coke formula, maybe the owner of that secret isn't interested in licensing it for royalties.
- jhall1468 9y ago
  In which case they get an injunction and Uber can't use the tech or the fruits of it. They'd be screwed as far as self-driving is concerned.
rhino369 9y ago
A royalty is an option, but the court could also award Google's lost profits or Ubers ill-gotten gains. Or both.

fixermark 9y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the worst thing that could happen would be that Uber would be forbidden from using the stolen technology or its fruits. ... which would basically be akin to telling them "Get out of the self-driving vehicle business."

mikejb 9y ago
That is the worst that can come out of this case - and it would be a critical hit for Uber. Self-driving will be a big aspect of the future (how long that future's away is a different discussion), but once self-driving cars are here, what would Uber's business be? Kalanick himself said this: "If we are not tied for first, then the person who is in first, or the entity that's in first, then rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far cheaper or far higher-quality than Uber's, then Uber is no longer a thing" OTOH, Alsup (the judge in this case) recommended to look into a criminal investigation against Uber, which seems to be in progress considering that is what lead to the Jacob's letter in Alsup's hands. That potential investigation could have worse impact than just "don't do self-driving cars". Depending on the verdict, it could lead to anything between nothing to prison time for numerous executives to the point that the company itself would struggle to survive.
- pitaj 9y ago
  > struggle to survive it probably would result in Uber being acquired
joshuamorton 9y ago
Also not a lawyer. >would be that Uber would be forbidden from using the stolen technology or its fruits No, that's pretty much already happened as part of the preliminary injunction. Uber has so far argued that insofar as Levandowski had and may have used trade secrets, they never made it into any production vehicles, and so firing Levandowski meets that bar. If Google wins the lawsuit, there are probably damages to be had. In addition to saying "no, stop using this or any of its fruits", my understanding is that the court can order Uber to pay Google for the advantages it god. In other words, if the trade secrets advanced Uber's autonomous vehicle initiatives by a year, they might be liable for a year's worth of autonomous vehicle R&D costs, and also need to start over from not having any trade secrets.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > No, that's pretty much already happened as part of the preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction goes away with (or before) final resolution of the case (though it may, at that time, be replaced with a permanent injunction.)

bitmapbrother 9y ago

I believe Waymo is asking for 1.8 billion in damages. They were asking 1 billion to settle. Ultimately, though, it's up to the jury to award damages if they find for Waymo.