391–400 of 542 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Uber be awarded licensing terms they could "live with" for code they (allegedly) outright stole from a competitor?
Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
This looks like a bunch of circumstantial evidence. The two LiDAR boards need to be compared to prove that Otto stole Waymo's IP.
Did you miss the part where the schematic was shared from a 3rd party vendor? Seems like all the comparison you'd need to file a lawsuit
I assume they must look similar enough to a non-technical judge for them to be presented in that form, or they would be presented with an expert analysis of the similarities.
My guess is they are identical except the logos. The dimensions of the redaction boxes is very similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With everything that has gone on at Uber including a former friend of Travis' accusing him of stealing the company concept itself, something like this wouldn't be a Surprise.
It must be very confusing and frustrating for the guy. It's just like Enron: all that behavior is super wonderful and exciting and disruptive and rewarding, until suddenly it's not. The kind of person who does this stuff, really doesn't understand even the concept of 'crossing a line', or indeed legality. Hence, it seems to them really offensive that anyone should get in their way, and up TO that point their self-con…
Um. Nope. Uber based on its business on weakening the rule of law by wilfully ignoring the taxi regulations https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-... . To add insult to injury they worked steadily on reinstating indentured servitude by pushing subprime loans on drivers where the payments come out of their wages and their cars not starting if they are remiss. http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-and-its-shady-partners-are-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/inside-ub... https://twitter.com/shashashasha/status/688734478181732352 And to crown it all, when they started automated car testing they put cyclists in deadly danger https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self...
What's "wonderful and exciting" about this? Uber from day one has been running from the law. You can't do that forever. It's been some sixty years now when the "I fought the law and the law won" song was recorded. It's still true.
If this goes to a jury, could the damages shut uber down?
Hard to say. If I were Uber, and we seemed likely to lose, I would try to convey the following... The only thing truly gained by stealing Waymos's LiDAR designs was a temporary period of lower cost , but high quality, LiDAR unit. Effectively, a short term discount. You can buy high quality today...It's just expensive. More affordable LiDAR is coming, for everyone, regardless of what Waymo does. They are not the only…
This LIDAR costs $10k. Other LIDAR costs $100k. At the time of this lawsuit, we had 25 test cars on the road. Therefore triple damages are $90k * 25 * 3, so we'll pay you $7 million.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you send your kernel logs to a syslog server you could get that pretty easily. From plugging a USB stick into my computer just now, then running dmesg: [14863.014481] usb-storage 2-4:1.0: USB Mass Storage device detected ... [15045.488440] usb 2-4: USB disconnect, device number 34 They do, though, have quite a bit of pretty impressive logging!
If I read this correctly at this point the machine was running Windows. I have zero doubts, however, that Windows has equivalent impressive logging, apparently the USB vendor and device ID pair was recorded as well.
A cursory google search shows this for USB events: https://dfstream.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/the-windows-7-event...
[replying to a deleted post] I also found the SVN allegation to be circumstantial at best in the coverage that didn't focus on any other points. Installing a tool and downloading gigs of design data is a nuts-and-bolts operation for many disciplines (even for those that don't normally use version control but interact with a team that does). If Levandowski didn't typically access SVN on a frequent basis, it's still ve…
The USB sd card reader could just be so he could sync his holiday photos.
The downloading of the entire SVN repository could just be so he could grep it for a file he didn't know the path to, or perhaps to try to compile something he wasn't sure the dependancies of. Reinstalling to linux could simply be because the software wouldn't build under windows. (it seems doubtful the self driving car uses a windows software stack).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Were they going to buy and operate a fleet? I don't see what's the problem with that.
It's not problematic at all. But it would require Uber to cease being a software company and start being, like, an actual taxi service, with physical assets and vehicles and garages and maintenance. The whole reason Uber is competitive with actual taxi services is that those costs are all offloaded to the poor saps who drive for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading the deposition, under oath, of the forensics engineer who investigated the situation basically made me agree with the blog post and even that quote in particular. I think they have him dead to rights, here, barring a miracle of explaining away very, very suspicious behavior and a mountain of circumstantial evidence. I would hope if I asked any of my source control clients to dump a bunch of stuff and then wal…
All testimony in a trial is under oath. You still haven't heard the testimony from any of the accused, and you already came to a conclusion based on the single testimony of the plaintiff? "Welp, that's good enough for me, I guess Levandowski is guilty. Let's wrap it up, everyone!" I hope you realize how ridiculous this is. You don't know he dumped anything onto a USB drive. As far as the testimony knows, he plugged i…
I actually haven't drawn any conclusion, particularly on the person involved. This is basically standing on the sidelines and saying damn, they have a good case. It'll be impressive to see the defense.
You've drawn the conclusion and assumed I have. I'm merely remarking that the case is extraordinarily strong and the evidence, as circumstantial as it is, is compelling, unless you feel that the evidence is fabricated. And a lawyer can't rip all of what I read to shreds, though I understand what you're saying.