9 ms·

The article is not a very comprehensive look at what's going on. The thread running through the comments - that the case Waymo had against Uber was flimsy - is

by ABCLAW 9y ago

The article is not a very comprehensive look at what's going on. The thread running through the comments - that the case Waymo had against Uber was flimsy - is questionable. You don't toss someone a few hundred million dollars because your case is 'flimsy', and 'winning or losing' in court is too simplistic an analysis of the impact of the lawsuit on both sides as well as their third party competitors. The Jeong article reads like someone read Uber's submissions to the court, phrased them in common vernacular, then ignored everything that didn't fit their narrative.

burner890 9y ago
You do toss someone a couple hundred million in private equity for an immediate end to the damage to the company's brand, legal fees and recruiting efforts. If Uber was in any real jeopardy of being found liable here they would have settled for far more. We know this because if Uber lost the case outright they would face an injunction against their self-driving business that would probably force them to license Waymo tech or put an end to the whole endeavor. Uber ATG is worth a lot more than what they paid in equity, and this is not an amount that matters at all to Google. The dollar figure is just there so Google can say they didn't come away with nothing.
- cma 9y ago
  > Uber ATG is worth a lot more than what they paid in equity, and this is not an amount that matters at all to Google. The dollar figure is just there so Google can say they didn't come away with nothing. The settlement wasn't just for money, it also barred Uber from use of some of the disputed trade secrets/technology, which could be valuable for Google. Given that Uber hasn't monetized the technology yet, it would be hard to prove any damages. The outcome of a trial could have been a similar amount and an injunction and still been a big win for Google if the future self driving market is really going to be big and if the covered technology really was crucial.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  No, Uber wasn't likely to settle for more, monetarily. The manner in which damages are fixed for trade secret and patent infringement make the total damages difficult to assess until the product goes to market. Google would be hard pressed to show actual loss, so Uber would likely be hit with some disgorgement stemming from unjust enrichment with some injunctive relief on the side. What did they get? Unjust Enrichment sized damages and mutually agreed forbearance equivalent to injunctive relief. And that's before we get into discussing how much of a minefield discovery was becoming in the case.
  - abvdasker 9y ago
    There is nothing in this settlement equivalent to injunctive relief. An injunction was the worst-case scenario for Uber and they would never settle for something that amounts to their worst-case, otherwise why not just finish the trial?
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      1) The most common and most valuable injunctive relief in IP litigation is an injunction to have people stop using your special sauce. That's literally what they got in the settlement. 2) Because prior to the trial there would have been a flurry of discovery related motions, a large amount of time pulling engineers off their jobs to have them perform witness prep at both companies, then a large period of pre-trial legal prep, then the trial itself. At all stages, information is leaking, and expenses are going up. ... And then the appeals start. ... Then the partial re-trials and appeals on those.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
It's a cost/benefit analysis. Waymo put forward a fairly weak case. There were damning elements of that case, for sure, but there were also weaknesses, and a case is a chain of reasoning that is only as strong as its weakest point. If Waymo was certain of victory they would not have settled, it would have been in their best interest to get things sorted in court and to get the maximum amount of money out of Uber. The fact that they settled is an indication that both parties were unsure of the outcome of the trial.
- noway421 9y ago
  I think there might be still politics at play that GV is a investor at Uber. While Waymo is pretty unrelated to GV, there might have been "signals" from the parent company to quiet down the case.
  - InclinedPlane 9y ago
    Right. They extracted a fairly measly amount of money from Uber but more importantly they extracted a commitment that Uber would go the extra mile to prove they weren't making use of any of Waymo's IP.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  I think the last point really drives is home. Following the trial for a week, there honestly wasn't any strong winner. It was pretty weak on both sides, and no one could've really predicted which side the jury would've fell I think. It was down to game theory, they would both rather get a settlement than bet on the jury.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  Settlement isn't an indication that both parties were unsure of the outcome of the trial; trials are never certain things. Settlement is the most common way civil litigation disputes are resolved. Trials are the anomaly. In this case, both parties likely recognized that getting into a knife fight about documentary production in a high-stakes race-to-market matter was likely in Cruise's favor, not theirs.

by ABCLAW 9y ago

burner890 9y ago

You do toss someone a couple hundred million in private equity for an immediate end to the damage to the company's brand, legal fees and recruiting efforts. If Uber was in any real jeopardy of being found liable here they would have settled for far more. We know this because if Uber lost the case outright they would face an injunction against their self-driving business that would probably force them to license Waymo tech or put an end to the whole endeavor. Uber ATG is worth a lot more than what they paid in equity, and this is not an amount that matters at all to Google. The dollar figure is just there so Google can say they didn't come away with nothing.

cma 9y ago
> Uber ATG is worth a lot more than what they paid in equity, and this is not an amount that matters at all to Google. The dollar figure is just there so Google can say they didn't come away with nothing. The settlement wasn't just for money, it also barred Uber from use of some of the disputed trade secrets/technology, which could be valuable for Google. Given that Uber hasn't monetized the technology yet, it would be hard to prove any damages. The outcome of a trial could have been a similar amount and an injunction and still been a big win for Google if the future self driving market is really going to be big and if the covered technology really was crucial.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ABCLAW 9y ago
No, Uber wasn't likely to settle for more, monetarily. The manner in which damages are fixed for trade secret and patent infringement make the total damages difficult to assess until the product goes to market. Google would be hard pressed to show actual loss, so Uber would likely be hit with some disgorgement stemming from unjust enrichment with some injunctive relief on the side. What did they get? Unjust Enrichment sized damages and mutually agreed forbearance equivalent to injunctive relief. And that's before we get into discussing how much of a minefield discovery was becoming in the case.
- abvdasker 9y ago
  There is nothing in this settlement equivalent to injunctive relief. An injunction was the worst-case scenario for Uber and they would never settle for something that amounts to their worst-case, otherwise why not just finish the trial?
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    1) The most common and most valuable injunctive relief in IP litigation is an injunction to have people stop using your special sauce. That's literally what they got in the settlement. 2) Because prior to the trial there would have been a flurry of discovery related motions, a large amount of time pulling engineers off their jobs to have them perform witness prep at both companies, then a large period of pre-trial legal prep, then the trial itself. At all stages, information is leaking, and expenses are going up. ... And then the appeals start. ... Then the partial re-trials and appeals on those.

InclinedPlane 9y ago

It's a cost/benefit analysis. Waymo put forward a fairly weak case. There were damning elements of that case, for sure, but there were also weaknesses, and a case is a chain of reasoning that is only as strong as its weakest point. If Waymo was certain of victory they would not have settled, it would have been in their best interest to get things sorted in court and to get the maximum amount of money out of Uber. The fact that they settled is an indication that both parties were unsure of the outcome of the trial.

noway421 9y ago
I think there might be still politics at play that GV is a investor at Uber. While Waymo is pretty unrelated to GV, there might have been "signals" from the parent company to quiet down the case.
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  Right. They extracted a fairly measly amount of money from Uber but more importantly they extracted a commitment that Uber would go the extra mile to prove they weren't making use of any of Waymo's IP.
ehsankia 9y ago
I think the last point really drives is home. Following the trial for a week, there honestly wasn't any strong winner. It was pretty weak on both sides, and no one could've really predicted which side the jury would've fell I think. It was down to game theory, they would both rather get a settlement than bet on the jury.
ABCLAW 9y ago
Settlement isn't an indication that both parties were unsure of the outcome of the trial; trials are never certain things. Settlement is the most common way civil litigation disputes are resolved. Trials are the anomaly. In this case, both parties likely recognized that getting into a knife fight about documentary production in a high-stakes race-to-market matter was likely in Cruise's favor, not theirs.