5 ms·
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
by 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 agoAt 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 agoAnything 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 agoTo 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...)