3 ms·

> The settlement is an indication that it did not do that, which means they'll likely have to scrap a large piece of it's incremental work. That isn't true. Ub

by tmh79 9y ago

> The settlement is an indication that it did not do that, which means they'll likely have to scrap a large piece of it's incremental work. That isn't true. Uber didn't use any trade secrets from waymo, thats why waymo settled. The point of the oversite is to continue to show that uber isn't using their trade secrets. There is no part of the uber tech stack that needs to be retired as an outcome of this case.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Uber didn't use any trade secrets from waymo, thats why waymo settled. Waymo has plenty of motivation to settle if they could get adequate behavioral commitments in the settlement, even if they thought Uber had and had used Waymo trade secrets. We don't know here details of the behavioral commitments around preventing use of Waymo technology, but their existence was in the public release. Given that, if Waymo wins the self-driving race, Uber is a likely customer and is a company Alphabet already owns a nice chunk of through GV, there is plenty of incentive to minimize cost to Uber as well as Waymo while mitigating any risk of Uber using Waymo tech. Dragging out the court process isn't in anyone's interest, whether or not Uber stole and used Waymo technology.
mbesto 9y ago
> To be clear, while we do not believe that any trade secrets made their way from Waymo to Uber, nor do we believe that Uber has used any of Waymo’s proprietary information in its self-driving technology, we are taking steps with Waymo to ensure our Lidar and software represents just our good work. [0] > Uber didn't use any trade secrets from waymo, thats why waymo settled. This is still unclear. > There is no part of the uber tech stack that needs to be retired as an outcome of this case. Honestly, no one knows for sure, everything here (including my statements) is pure conjecture. Here's the reality though - Uber did not explicitly say "we absolutely 100% did not steal trade secrets". Outside the court of law, that tells me they are going to lose something of value...to what extent, I guess only Uber knows. [0] https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uber-waymo-settlement/ https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uber-waymo-settlement/

by tmh79 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Uber didn't use any trade secrets from waymo, thats why waymo settled. Waymo has plenty of motivation to settle if they could get adequate behavioral commitments in the settlement, even if they thought Uber had and had used Waymo trade secrets. We don't know here details of the behavioral commitments around preventing use of Waymo technology, but their existence was in the public release. Given that, if Waymo wins the self-driving race, Uber is a likely customer and is a company Alphabet already owns a nice chunk of through GV, there is plenty of incentive to minimize cost to Uber as well as Waymo while mitigating any risk of Uber using Waymo tech. Dragging out the court process isn't in anyone's interest, whether or not Uber stole and used Waymo technology.

mbesto 9y ago

> To be clear, while we do not believe that any trade secrets made their way from Waymo to Uber, nor do we believe that Uber has used any of Waymo’s proprietary information in its self-driving technology, we are taking steps with Waymo to ensure our Lidar and software represents just our good work. [0] > Uber didn't use any trade secrets from waymo, thats why waymo settled. This is still unclear. > There is no part of the uber tech stack that needs to be retired as an outcome of this case. Honestly, no one knows for sure, everything here (including my statements) is pure conjecture. Here's the reality though - Uber did not explicitly say "we absolutely 100% did not steal trade secrets". Outside the court of law, that tells me they are going to lose something of value...to what extent, I guess only Uber knows. [0] https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uber-waymo-settlement/ https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uber-waymo-settlement/