I agree, there are other uses for sure. But, again, you have to look at the full body of evidence. The most notable part to me is that Uber stopped using the a

I agree, there are other uses for sure. But, again, you have to look at the full body of evidence. The most notable part to me is that Uber stopped using the app. What would change in the privacy world to make them not need that app if they had a use for it before? Add that to all the other context of the case, and malicious use is a lot more likely to me. > Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons. If I'm not mistaken, this is a civil suit and subject to "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I find a hard time making an argument that it's more likely Uber didn't use Levandowski to steal trade secrets from Google.