4 ms·

It's in the official waymo statement and was pretty easy to find: https://blog.waymo.com/2019/08/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and.html https://blog.waymo.

by kanobo 6y ago

It's in the official waymo statement and was pretty easy to find: https://blog.waymo.com/2019/08/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and.html https://blog.waymo.com/2019/08/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against... "Recently, we received an unexpected email. One of our suppliers specializing in LiDAR components sent us an attachment (apparently inadvertently) of machine drawings of what was purported to be Uber’s LiDAR circuit board — except its design bore a striking resemblance to Waymo’s unique LiDAR design." It was also in many articles. The story is that they were reluctant to pursue it until that email, you can find a ton of sources in the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Levandowski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Levandowski

bosswipe 6y ago
You kind of made my point by quoting straight from Google public relations. Was the strikingly similar schematic verified independently by journalists? Did it come up at trial?
- kanobo 6y ago
  I respectfully don't really understand your point, you think there's a conspiracy to publicly falsify evidence and influence the public? That would have caused immediate problems at trial if each company made such bold false statements and would have been a blessing for Levandowski's legal team. Also, not sure how or why you would 'google' anything to verify news if your bar is so high and you're not willing to spend more than a minute researching. edit: it took two minutes to find the WAYMO LLC v UBER TECHNOLOGIES pdf on google and they reference the email evidence various times.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    > you think there's a conspiracy to publicly falsify evidence and influence the public It's not a conspiracy theory, companies employ public relations to influence how the public views them. In this case Google has a strong interest in making Lewandowski out to be unusually reckless so that other engineers don't view Google as a company that goes after engineers.
    - kanobo 6y ago
      I think you're spending more time trying to justify your initial failure at finding the story on google rather than just doing the basic research to satisfy your curiosity. I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.

by kanobo 6y ago

bosswipe 6y ago

You kind of made my point by quoting straight from Google public relations. Was the strikingly similar schematic verified independently by journalists? Did it come up at trial?

kanobo 6y ago
I respectfully don't really understand your point, you think there's a conspiracy to publicly falsify evidence and influence the public? That would have caused immediate problems at trial if each company made such bold false statements and would have been a blessing for Levandowski's legal team. Also, not sure how or why you would 'google' anything to verify news if your bar is so high and you're not willing to spend more than a minute researching. edit: it took two minutes to find the WAYMO LLC v UBER TECHNOLOGIES pdf on google and they reference the email evidence various times.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  > you think there's a conspiracy to publicly falsify evidence and influence the public It's not a conspiracy theory, companies employ public relations to influence how the public views them. In this case Google has a strong interest in making Lewandowski out to be unusually reckless so that other engineers don't view Google as a company that goes after engineers.
  - kanobo 6y ago
    I think you're spending more time trying to justify your initial failure at finding the story on google rather than just doing the basic research to satisfy your curiosity. I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.