5 ms·

Probably because none of the lawyers on Uber's side had the credentials to stop and ask themselves "hey, is this even patentable?!" Nobody consulted any engine

Probably because none of the lawyers on Uber's side had the credentials to stop and ask themselves "hey, is this even patentable?!" Nobody consulted any engineer. Just lawyers fighting each other, and the side with the biggest pockets won.

spydum 8y ago
Absolutely believable - I’ve been amazed at some of the foolishness of general councils at LARGE corps. They may know law, but they can suck at getting details right about engineering problems. Heck even when it comes to law, can’t tell you how many times I have heard “we will need to consult outside council”..
- 1_player 8y ago
  See, I'm being absolutely cynical and tongue-in-cheek here, but my understanding about the modern law is that lawyers aren't fighting for the "truth" or "common good" nor they are in the "righting wrongs" business. Their only job is doing whatever the client wants done. A _good lawyer_ wins a case even when it's total bollocks. The fact that it is bollocks is not a concern at any level. https://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E?t=5m56s https://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E?t=5m56s
  - rcxdude 8y ago
    This is how adversarial justice systems are supposed to operate. The idea being that you get lawyers advocating in the best possible way for either side, so the argument is 'fair'. This is in comparison to an inquisitorial system, where one party is charged with investigating the case and exposing the 'truth'. This is more prone to bias and ability on that one party but it does generally mean that the level of resources each side has matters less.
    - 1_player 8y ago
      Makes sense, I'm not very informed on justice systems. What concerns me is, with such a system, when A wins a case against B, we (the vast populace) deduce that A was in the right / B was wrong. In many cases, if A wins a case, it's just because they lied better than B. It does not prove anything more than that.
    - sorokod 8y ago
      Its a modern version of trial by combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat). As always ,those who can buy a better combatant - win.
gamblor956 8y ago
Nobody consulted any engineer. Just lawyers fighting each other, and the side with the biggest pockets won. For a case like this, it would have been malpractice for Uber's lawyers not to have consulted a subject matter expert to review the patent. It's very likely that Uber will (if they have not already) be demanding reparations from their lawyers over this.

spydum 8y ago

Absolutely believable - I’ve been amazed at some of the foolishness of general councils at LARGE corps. They may know law, but they can suck at getting details right about engineering problems. Heck even when it comes to law, can’t tell you how many times I have heard “we will need to consult outside council”..

1_player 8y ago
See, I'm being absolutely cynical and tongue-in-cheek here, but my understanding about the modern law is that lawyers aren't fighting for the "truth" or "common good" nor they are in the "righting wrongs" business. Their only job is doing whatever the client wants done. A _good lawyer_ wins a case even when it's total bollocks. The fact that it is bollocks is not a concern at any level. https://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E?t=5m56s https://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E?t=5m56s
- rcxdude 8y ago
  This is how adversarial justice systems are supposed to operate. The idea being that you get lawyers advocating in the best possible way for either side, so the argument is 'fair'. This is in comparison to an inquisitorial system, where one party is charged with investigating the case and exposing the 'truth'. This is more prone to bias and ability on that one party but it does generally mean that the level of resources each side has matters less.
  - 1_player 8y ago
    Makes sense, I'm not very informed on justice systems. What concerns me is, with such a system, when A wins a case against B, we (the vast populace) deduce that A was in the right / B was wrong. In many cases, if A wins a case, it's just because they lied better than B. It does not prove anything more than that.
  - sorokod 8y ago
    Its a modern version of trial by combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat). As always ,those who can buy a better combatant - win.

gamblor956 8y ago

Nobody consulted any engineer. Just lawyers fighting each other, and the side with the biggest pockets won. For a case like this, it would have been malpractice for Uber's lawyers not to have consulted a subject matter expert to review the patent. It's very likely that Uber will (if they have not already) be demanding reparations from their lawyers over this.