12 ms·

Really surprised this ended so quickly. Did Waymo and Uber reach a settlement that early because: - the former felt this was the "best" it could get in such a

Really surprised this ended so quickly. Did Waymo and Uber reach a settlement that early because: - the former felt this was the "best" it could get in such a situation as their case was not as strong as they initially thought - the latter was not keen on having its image dragged into the mud any further and may also be aware that more incriminating material could surface if Google or others dug further? IANAL, but I find the resolution of this case quite puzzling... Also what does it mean for Uber's self-driving car development efforts?

alex_young 9y ago
After a few days of testimony it's surely related to how that's going. The stakes get really high when your fate is in 10 random people's hands...
pcwalton 9y ago
The trial was turning into a circus. (Just look at Sarah Jeong's tweet storms about it.) I'm not surprised this happened in that light: it was terrible for the image of both companies and self-driving cars in general.
- fullshark 9y ago
  Why both companies?
  - Fricken 9y ago
    For Uber I think it's obvious. For Waymo, well, to use the Words of former program manager Chris Urmson in a late 2015 letter to Sergey Brin (Which Uber's lawyers trotted out as part of their defense) "Over the past 6 months we have stopped playing to win and are now playing to minimize downside." Waymo joins Tesla and Baidu as self driving car companies who have levied lawsuits over top engineers leaving their projects to become competition.
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    The judge was admonishing Waymo for showing what were essentially marketing materials to the jury in closed-door sessions. Their lawyers were showing clips from Wall Street in court. They were asking Travis Kalanick to explain video game terminology in ludicrous detail. And so on. No company that aims to be taken seriously wants to be involved in a circus like that.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      IIRC it was in the context of Kalanick/Levandowski quoting stuff and using these terms, so it's fair to present the jury with a "here's what they meant by it and what they were referencing".
- mbesto 9y ago
  I don't buy the "it was a bad image for both companies". Do either of these companies really care about their image specifically when it comes to AD, other than simply "winning the market"?
  - SkyPuncher 9y ago
    Yes, absolutely. I am very hesitant to use Uber because of their other ethically questionable tactics. This whole suit was furthering the notion that Uber has no limits to their desire to be number 1 - regardless of who they exploit or harm on the way.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    Brand image matters a ton to both companies because they are fueled on user trust. Uber asks you to get into a car with someone you’ve never met. Google asks you to trust them with your entire digital footprint. If people have an “icky” image of them it will yield severe financial damage.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  How was it negative for Google?
xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
Probably both. As someone following the case it really seems like Waymo's case fell apart. It doesn't seem like anything changes. This just looks like a large waste of time and money.
- Retric 9y ago
  Looks like Waymo is getting $245 million worth of equity. Considering there are no direct damages as Uber never actually got anywhere with self driving cars that seems incredibly high.
  - 0xB31B1B 9y ago
    Basically, Uber is paying google 250m instead of paying AL 250m in earnouts he was supposed to get. All in all good for Uber.
    - jacksmith21006 9y ago
      Good for Uber? They lost Lewandowski and their founder. Plus have to pay $250m. Plus lots of things exposed at Uber. How is this a positive?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - mbesto 9y ago
    And Uber can't use any of the trade secrets from Waymo. Maybe I missed something, but isn't this a win for Waymo?
    - xbmcuser 9y ago
      Waymo became a minor investor in Uber in future can vote for Uber to buy or rent it's cars. If I recall correctly Google ventures was an early investor in Uber as well. So Alphabet might own a lot more of Uber once it's Ipo
roymurdock 9y ago
Agree with your analysis - Waymo's trade secret violation case was flimsy so they were willing to settle, and Uber from the beginning has been looking for the quickest way out. Even if Uber could have won the case, their reputation is now such that if you see Uber in a headline, you are primed to think "scandal" or "evil" - even if you see "Uber wins Waymo case" you'll think "wow I wonder what shady stuff Uber did to pull that one off against Google". I'm interested to see if Waymo pursues anything directly against Levandowski.
- xapata 9y ago
  > against Levandowski They can't, because they agreed to binding arbitration. The Feds can pursue him criminally.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    At one point, Waymo initiated arbitration over the issue of poaching employees, but the taking of trade secrets was excluded from that case. Did they subsequently go to arbitration over the latter? And, on the other hand, does the mandatory arbitration clause in Waymo's employment contracts mean that it can not take Levandowski to court over the trade secrets?
    - xapata 9y ago
      Anything civil must go to arbitration and criminal isn't something Waymo can initiate. Alsup recommended the DOJ look at the case. They may choose to investigate Levandowski. I am not a lawyer.
- emn13 9y ago
  To support your point, I don't believe for a second that Uber is actually innocent of intentionally stealing trade secrets. Far more likely that they they had the foresight not to keep any documents of their foray into industrial espionage, knowing that getting caught if there simply isn't any trail is very unlikely. (I mean, this is the company that remotely wipes machines to avoid complying with search warrants, under a CEO that appears to think that the ends justify any means...)
ChuckMcM 9y ago
It does have the feel of a TV show at this point. Given @sarahjeong's coverage on Twitter and in the Verge I would not be surprised if Waymo's legal team felt they were going to at least not win, and might lose. And to my thinking Waymo had lots more to lose than Uber did. (and I think that is reflected in the settlement being not quite 13% of what they were asking, and in stock which may be completely worthless). Waymo loses and it might embolden other Google employees to go to competitors, it might embolden those competitors to try to recruit their top engineers to bring their ideas into the competitor. It might completely blunt Googles ability to get any engineer to believe what the company thinks of as trade secrets would actually be considered trade secrets in a court and so they aren't as threatening as before. And on cross examination Uber might have pulled some things into open court and the public record that Waymo would rather not have out there. Uber on the other hand already has a reputation as being a rule breaker, and skating over the line. So what do they have to lose? I Waymo can take $1.9 billion in cash out of Uber (maybe more if they can get lawyers fees etc) they can take them off the board completely. According to the coverage they were being berated by the judge and their case had gone from being about patents to about trade secrets to about 8 trade secrets. That is not a legal case gaining steam, that is one that is trying to stay alive.
- jimbo999 9y ago
  >According to the coverage they were being berated by the judge and their case had gone from being about patents to about trade secrets to about 8 trade secrets. That is not a legal case gaining steam, that is one that is trying to stay alive. Indeed - the bruised egos of silicon valley lawyers couldn't stomach another day of humiliation in a public court. Especially given the clownish nature of their clients. They'll cry themselves to sleep tonight on their large piles of money.
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive or name-calling comments here. "Silicon Valley lawyers" may or may not deserve better, but the HN community certainly does. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
zitterbewegung 9y ago
I think the case resolved nicely. Both of them get it resolved on a Friday so everyone wanted it to be swept under the rug (especially with the markets being front and center). Uber and Waymo will still compete with each other for self-driving cars but most likely will be hobbled in their efforts due to the kerfuffle.
sseveran 9y ago
This has to do with the IPO. Ideally the lawsuit will be done before the IPO so there is no uncertainty about future liabilities. Even if Uber won its unlikely that the appeals will be done before Uber wants to IPO.
lacker 9y ago
It makes a lot of sense to me. Google cares much more about Uber not stealing their trade secrets, than about money. I strongly suspect that once Travis left and Dara took over, Dara was able to convince Google that Uber would behave appropriately from now on. The lawsuit served its purpose by helping to force Travis out.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  This.
dboreham 9y ago
Perhaps this quick settlement is driven (sic) by the possibility that self-driving cars don't work, and neither party wants that situation to be exposed in open court?
- jimbo999 9y ago
  I support this hot take.
- tehlike 9y ago
  Seriously? You think the tech is impossible?
  - ars 9y ago
    I do. I think it's only possible with instrumented, self-driving only, roads. I think it's impossible for general purpose roads. Not without true AI.
  - dboreham 9y ago
    ars answered perfectly for me, but indeed I believe it is not going to work. Impossible? Well that depends -- for some constrained version of the problem (no human drivers, special lanes/roads for SDVs) perhaps. In the distant future when strong AI has been built, well sure then it's easy.
Uhhrrr 9y ago
One thing is, for tech companies, generally if you're in court you're losing. It sucks away time, money, attention, and PR from the rest of the company.

alex_young 9y ago

After a few days of testimony it's surely related to how that's going. The stakes get really high when your fate is in 10 random people's hands...

pcwalton 9y ago

The trial was turning into a circus. (Just look at Sarah Jeong's tweet storms about it.) I'm not surprised this happened in that light: it was terrible for the image of both companies and self-driving cars in general.

fullshark 9y ago
Why both companies?
- Fricken 9y ago
  For Uber I think it's obvious. For Waymo, well, to use the Words of former program manager Chris Urmson in a late 2015 letter to Sergey Brin (Which Uber's lawyers trotted out as part of their defense) "Over the past 6 months we have stopped playing to win and are now playing to minimize downside." Waymo joins Tesla and Baidu as self driving car companies who have levied lawsuits over top engineers leaving their projects to become competition.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  The judge was admonishing Waymo for showing what were essentially marketing materials to the jury in closed-door sessions. Their lawyers were showing clips from Wall Street in court. They were asking Travis Kalanick to explain video game terminology in ludicrous detail. And so on. No company that aims to be taken seriously wants to be involved in a circus like that.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    IIRC it was in the context of Kalanick/Levandowski quoting stuff and using these terms, so it's fair to present the jury with a "here's what they meant by it and what they were referencing".
mbesto 9y ago
I don't buy the "it was a bad image for both companies". Do either of these companies really care about their image specifically when it comes to AD, other than simply "winning the market"?
- SkyPuncher 9y ago
  Yes, absolutely. I am very hesitant to use Uber because of their other ethically questionable tactics. This whole suit was furthering the notion that Uber has no limits to their desire to be number 1 - regardless of who they exploit or harm on the way.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  Brand image matters a ton to both companies because they are fueled on user trust. Uber asks you to get into a car with someone you’ve never met. Google asks you to trust them with your entire digital footprint. If people have an “icky” image of them it will yield severe financial damage.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
How was it negative for Google?

xyzzy_plugh 9y ago

Probably both. As someone following the case it really seems like Waymo's case fell apart. It doesn't seem like anything changes. This just looks like a large waste of time and money.

Retric 9y ago
Looks like Waymo is getting $245 million worth of equity. Considering there are no direct damages as Uber never actually got anywhere with self driving cars that seems incredibly high.
- 0xB31B1B 9y ago
  Basically, Uber is paying google 250m instead of paying AL 250m in earnouts he was supposed to get. All in all good for Uber.
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Good for Uber? They lost Lewandowski and their founder. Plus have to pay $250m. Plus lots of things exposed at Uber. How is this a positive?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- mbesto 9y ago
  And Uber can't use any of the trade secrets from Waymo. Maybe I missed something, but isn't this a win for Waymo?
  - xbmcuser 9y ago
    Waymo became a minor investor in Uber in future can vote for Uber to buy or rent it's cars. If I recall correctly Google ventures was an early investor in Uber as well. So Alphabet might own a lot more of Uber once it's Ipo

roymurdock 9y ago

Agree with your analysis - Waymo's trade secret violation case was flimsy so they were willing to settle, and Uber from the beginning has been looking for the quickest way out. Even if Uber could have won the case, their reputation is now such that if you see Uber in a headline, you are primed to think "scandal" or "evil" - even if you see "Uber wins Waymo case" you'll think "wow I wonder what shady stuff Uber did to pull that one off against Google". I'm interested to see if Waymo pursues anything directly against Levandowski.

xapata 9y ago
> against Levandowski They can't, because they agreed to binding arbitration. The Feds can pursue him criminally.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  At one point, Waymo initiated arbitration over the issue of poaching employees, but the taking of trade secrets was excluded from that case. Did they subsequently go to arbitration over the latter? And, on the other hand, does the mandatory arbitration clause in Waymo's employment contracts mean that it can not take Levandowski to court over the trade secrets?
  - xapata 9y ago
    Anything civil must go to arbitration and criminal isn't something Waymo can initiate. Alsup recommended the DOJ look at the case. They may choose to investigate Levandowski. I am not a lawyer.
emn13 9y ago
To support your point, I don't believe for a second that Uber is actually innocent of intentionally stealing trade secrets. Far more likely that they they had the foresight not to keep any documents of their foray into industrial espionage, knowing that getting caught if there simply isn't any trail is very unlikely. (I mean, this is the company that remotely wipes machines to avoid complying with search warrants, under a CEO that appears to think that the ends justify any means...)

ChuckMcM 9y ago

It does have the feel of a TV show at this point. Given @sarahjeong's coverage on Twitter and in the Verge I would not be surprised if Waymo's legal team felt they were going to at least not win, and might lose. And to my thinking Waymo had lots more to lose than Uber did. (and I think that is reflected in the settlement being not quite 13% of what they were asking, and in stock which may be completely worthless). Waymo loses and it might embolden other Google employees to go to competitors, it might embolden those competitors to try to recruit their top engineers to bring their ideas into the competitor. It might completely blunt Googles ability to get any engineer to believe what the company thinks of as trade secrets would actually be considered trade secrets in a court and so they aren't as threatening as before. And on cross examination Uber might have pulled some things into open court and the public record that Waymo would rather not have out there. Uber on the other hand already has a reputation as being a rule breaker, and skating over the line. So what do they have to lose? I Waymo can take $1.9 billion in cash out of Uber (maybe more if they can get lawyers fees etc) they can take them off the board completely. According to the coverage they were being berated by the judge and their case had gone from being about patents to about trade secrets to about 8 trade secrets. That is not a legal case gaining steam, that is one that is trying to stay alive.

jimbo999 9y ago
>According to the coverage they were being berated by the judge and their case had gone from being about patents to about trade secrets to about 8 trade secrets. That is not a legal case gaining steam, that is one that is trying to stay alive. Indeed - the bruised egos of silicon valley lawyers couldn't stomach another day of humiliation in a public court. Especially given the clownish nature of their clients. They'll cry themselves to sleep tonight on their large piles of money.
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive or name-calling comments here. "Silicon Valley lawyers" may or may not deserve better, but the HN community certainly does. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

zitterbewegung 9y ago

I think the case resolved nicely. Both of them get it resolved on a Friday so everyone wanted it to be swept under the rug (especially with the markets being front and center). Uber and Waymo will still compete with each other for self-driving cars but most likely will be hobbled in their efforts due to the kerfuffle.

sseveran 9y ago

This has to do with the IPO. Ideally the lawsuit will be done before the IPO so there is no uncertainty about future liabilities. Even if Uber won its unlikely that the appeals will be done before Uber wants to IPO.

lacker 9y ago

It makes a lot of sense to me. Google cares much more about Uber not stealing their trade secrets, than about money. I strongly suspect that once Travis left and Dara took over, Dara was able to convince Google that Uber would behave appropriately from now on. The lawsuit served its purpose by helping to force Travis out.

woodandsteel 9y ago
This.

dboreham 9y ago

Perhaps this quick settlement is driven (sic) by the possibility that self-driving cars don't work, and neither party wants that situation to be exposed in open court?

jimbo999 9y ago
I support this hot take.
tehlike 9y ago
Seriously? You think the tech is impossible?
- ars 9y ago
  I do. I think it's only possible with instrumented, self-driving only, roads. I think it's impossible for general purpose roads. Not without true AI.
- dboreham 9y ago
  ars answered perfectly for me, but indeed I believe it is not going to work. Impossible? Well that depends -- for some constrained version of the problem (no human drivers, special lanes/roads for SDVs) perhaps. In the distant future when strong AI has been built, well sure then it's easy.

Uhhrrr 9y ago

One thing is, for tech companies, generally if you're in court you're losing. It sucks away time, money, attention, and PR from the rest of the company.