3 ms·
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 ca
by 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 agoI 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 agoRight. 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 agoI 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 agoSettlement 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.