Live data from Hacker News

Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

techcrunch.com

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running a fleet of self-driving cars is running a car rental company. I am very surprised this comment got the top votes. OP - in which world do you live in? Uber already lease out vehicles so people who don't have a car but want to drive for Uber.... can lease it out from them. Uber does not have to maintain their cars. They can sign an AMC with some company.

> Uber already lease out vehicles so people who don't have a car but want to drive for Uber.... can lease it out from them Do you have any links for Uber-backed leases? This is the first I've heard of them and I'd like to know more. Last O heard, Uber was encouraging/facilitating leases from 3rd parties for its drivers without being involved in the resulting lease itself.

Copied this reddit post ive linked to before that sums it up:

"It's their xchangleasing leasing program. It's basically a sub prime car loan like from the housing bubble days. You use Uber as your income verification and they'll let anyone lease a car provided they do X amount rides each week regardless of credit. They require a three year lease, you a have month to back out but after that you're on the hook for the car 100%. So if Uber cuts it's rates they still have same payment but less fare money each month. They did this to a lot of people and it's well known within the company that a lot of Uber black drivers were screwed when this happened. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/inside-ub.... He leased a 2016 Toyota Corolla from Xchange in November, paying $155 a week. Two months later, Uber slashed fares nationally. Soon Hofstede had trouble keeping up with his payments. He went from making $200 in a weekend to $140 in a weekend, he said. "It got to the point that I would drive just to meet my payment," he said. "If you were short on your payment for a week it would roll onto the payment for next week. It starts adding up." In this guys case they did a similar program for uber black years ago. Then they changed which cars were considered black cars. If I remember right a year after they started the program they changed which cars were considered "black" cars and this guys Lexus?? Was no longer a black car. They said it couldn't exclusively be used for black and had to pick up Uber X riders as well. Uber x pays a lot less. The people this happened to were basically bait and switched when Travis changed the terms on them. He can refuse uber x rides and only pick up uber black riders but if he refuses more than 45 rides in a month he's fired and forever banned from Uber but still on the hook for the car lease. The old Uber black leases started around 4k or 5k a month(I forget which cars but this was for a base "black car") but they made 6k to 8k, 10k a month back then depending on market. They cut rates and required you to pick up cheaper fairs and you're underwater. That's the 97k he's talking about. A lot of Uber black leases were repo'd because after this change their leases were more than their entire monthly wage. That's the personal responsibility Travis wants him to have. It's "Sorry the market change, too bad". Also the market changed or I mean people did. They just stopped using Uber black. I mean if you're taking at 10 or 20 minute ride across town are you really so vain to need a uber black. Turns out actually rich people are cheap and flocked to Uber x. That's why Travis mentioned their reducing the amount of drivers beacuse the number or riders also drop double screwing guys like this. Now let me say YES Travis is correct the guy is responsible for his desisions and things don't always work out like you'd expect. That said I see the guys side he made a 3 year commitment to Uber he couldn't walk away from and everything he was promised changed."

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court orders them to stop using any code or designs that were touched by former Google employees, AKA all of their code and designs. They would then have to hire a new team of people who never worked at Google, or with the former Googlers, and do a "clean room" reimplementation of a self driving vehicle, based on publically available materials and tools.

Schadenfreude aside, I hope others realize how evil this outcome would be. California is a great place because it doesn't enforce anti-employee provisions like non-compete agreements. Seeing maybe the LIDAR efforts suffer a temporary setback, but any outcome that blocks all the work of all the engineers that all exercised their at-will rights to work for a different company is not something any engineer should be cel…

I don't see how trade secrets are analogous to a non-compete clause. California doesn't like non-competes, but most certainly does respect trade secrets. And Waymo isn't claiming that Levandowski is wrongly using skills or experience he picked up there; it's claiming he literally downloaded a bunch of internal documents on his way out the door, and handed them over to a competitor.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#113
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest cost in this business is the human component. For that all you need to do is check the price difference between renting for a day or getting taxi for a day. Given a choice, Uber would love to be the first to have self driving cars. Once they do that their business model scales predictably with capital. Whoever gets self driving technology right, will own all transportation and logistics - which is…

For that all you need to do is check the price difference between renting for a day or getting taxi for a day There's also the burden of convenience. A taxi is an instant, summonable affair that ends completely with the trip. A hire car has to be hired and returned to a specific location, you have to stow it during your hire period and you have to fuel it. Beyond the tangible costs of fuel, parking, etc. there's also…

I don't think that's necessarily true... but I don't think anyone's cracked it yet either.

There's https://www.car2go.com which ran for a year or so in my city but has since shut down. You could leave the car within the bounds of the city.

There are also various bike schemes with a similar idea?

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schadenfreude aside, I hope others realize how evil this outcome would be. California is a great place because it doesn't enforce anti-employee provisions like non-compete agreements. Seeing maybe the LIDAR efforts suffer a temporary setback, but any outcome that blocks all the work of all the engineers that all exercised their at-will rights to work for a different company is not something any engineer should be cel…

I don't see how trade secrets are analogous to a non-compete clause. California doesn't like non-competes, but most certainly does respect trade secrets. And Waymo isn't claiming that Levandowski is wrongly using skills or experience he picked up there; it's claiming he literally downloaded a bunch of internal documents on his way out the door, and handed them over to a competitor.

[deleted]

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schadenfreude aside, I hope others realize how evil this outcome would be. California is a great place because it doesn't enforce anti-employee provisions like non-compete agreements. Seeing maybe the LIDAR efforts suffer a temporary setback, but any outcome that blocks all the work of all the engineers that all exercised their at-will rights to work for a different company is not something any engineer should be cel…

I don't see how trade secrets are analogous to a non-compete clause. California doesn't like non-competes, but most certainly does respect trade secrets. And Waymo isn't claiming that Levandowski is wrongly using skills or experience he picked up there; it's claiming he literally downloaded a bunch of internal documents on his way out the door, and handed them over to a competitor.

And if he downloaded them but never handed them over or never did anything else with them after leaving Google?

I think one of the crazy things about all this is that having files from a previous employer is not a smoking gun. I wouldn't be surprised that with the blurring or work and life boundaries that a significant portion of people on HN have files from a previous employer on their personal computers. I still to this day occasionally find emails and files from prior employers for whom I haven't worked for in almost a decade now, including employers in an industry I've long since left behind. When I encounter them, I just delete them andget on with my day. Still having these files is nothing malicious on my part. It was often work that followed me home or files emailed around to print while on a business trip or any number of completely non-malicious reasons. This also extends to private code repos on github (many engineers use the same github account for both personal work and professional work). Check your personal computer and email for files from a previous employer. Do you have zero files from your previous employers lying around accidentally?

Thus far discovery has found a single file on a personal computer of one former Waymo engineer and no files on Uber computers using the terms requested by Waymo in discovery. To me that suggests that Google does a pretty good job of keeping work on Google's infrastructure (probably because most code only is useful on their specialized infrastructure) and that the overwhelming majority of former Waymo engineers are honest people doing honest work. There is literally one and only one engineer whose conduct has been called into question and that is Levandowski. Yes, he's the head of it all, but if discovery using the terms Waymo turned up nothing on Uber's machines then the files likely never made it to Uber. At best the knowledge from those files was laundered through Levandowski's mind, but even then without his personal computer showing that he still has those files and he's opened them since leaving Google, it's reasonable to assume that any knowledge he's past along was knowledge he himself created, i.e. it's tacit knowledge earn through his many years of professional experience.

Google is bleeding engineers to Uber. Why I don't know. It could be bureaucracy at Google and the lack of bureaucracy at Uber or Uber just made a better offer. One thing for sure is that if I were a Google engineer I would fear the ability to change employers to Uber right now because Google is going after many former Waymo engineers and not just the one engineer they have evidence for. This means that these engineers have fewer prospects to shop around their skills. That's evil in my book and as bad as the wage fixing collusion between companies like Google, Apple, Palm, Pixar, etc. Self driving car engineers are worth a lot of money in the market right now and Google filing this lawsuit against not a single engineer accused of wrongdoing but many engineers none of which they have evidence against that are likely honest hardworking people trying to get their market value is evil IMHO. Google should be dealing with Levandowski arbitrage, not dragging other engineers into it that have nothing to do with what Levandowski did when he was at Google.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#116
post #69

Uber's self-driving system doesn't actually have to work beyond the demo level. It's mostly to pump up the company's valuation. Uber is losing money, and unless they find another sucker within a year, they're toast. They've already had to borrow on unfavorable terms.[1] Operating a fleet of self-driving cars may turn out to be a lousy business. Uber's business model is built around others buying the cars, maintaining…

I think the biggest cost in this business is the human component. For that all you need to do is check the price difference between renting for a day or getting taxi for a day. Given a choice, Uber would love to be the first to have self driving cars. Once they do that their business model scales predictably with capital. Whoever gets self driving technology right, will own all transportation and logistics - which is…

> Whoever gets self driving technology right, will own all transportation and logistics - which is huge!

Why? Presumably others will develop self-driving technology too, and then ground transportation becomes an interchangeable commodity that competes on price. It's not like there's only one container-ship firm in the world.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#117
post #72

Question: how public are these hearings? Is there a place we could get transcripts of them? (I remember previous days had snippets of transcripts (at the very least))

They are public by default. There was a really entertaining transcript where the judge argued vehemently against attempts by the lawyers to restrict public access (which is possible to protect privacy or trade secrets, for example).

That said, when I last tried to find transcript, I couldn't find a comprehensive archive. They are available from PACER and from the court, but they charge transcription fees in the 3-digit range. But individual transcripts are published by media organisations, presumably after they pay for them.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#118
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that all you need to do is check the price difference between renting for a day or getting taxi for a day There's also the burden of convenience. A taxi is an instant, summonable affair that ends completely with the trip. A hire car has to be hired and returned to a specific location, you have to stow it during your hire period and you have to fuel it. Beyond the tangible costs of fuel, parking, etc. there's also…

I don't think that's necessarily true... but I don't think anyone's cracked it yet either. There's https://www.car2go.com which ran for a year or so in my city but has since shut down. You could leave the car within the bounds of the city. There are also various bike schemes with a similar idea?

Car schemes exist like Zipcar. I know people who live in cities and don't own a car who use them all the time. But it's turned out to be a pretty niche business. Zipcar is the highest profile of these businesses, at least in the US, AFAIK and even they ended up bought by Avis.

I suspect that with all the VC money subsidizing Uber et al, for most people the gap between regular rentals for a day+ and just calling an Uber isn't large.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how trade secrets are analogous to a non-compete clause. California doesn't like non-competes, but most certainly does respect trade secrets. And Waymo isn't claiming that Levandowski is wrongly using skills or experience he picked up there; it's claiming he literally downloaded a bunch of internal documents on his way out the door, and handed them over to a competitor.

And if he downloaded them but never handed them over or never did anything else with them after leaving Google? I think one of the crazy things about all this is that having files from a previous employer is not a smoking gun. I wouldn't be surprised that with the blurring or work and life boundaries that a significant portion of people on HN have files from a previous employer on their personal computers. I still to…

> I wouldn't be surprised that with the blurring or work and life boundaries that a significant portion of people on HN have files from a previous employer on their personal computers.

Maybe you do, I don't. Leaving an employer while retaining a copy of their confidential data is IMO a massively unethical thing to do.

I won't speak for others but when I leave an employer I do not take any data with me, not even notebooks. I may take additional notes about things I do outside of work, but I do this on my own time, and ensure that no source code, emails, or other company data is mixed up in those.

I have previously worked with people who kept their entire notebooks from previous employers. While it might help you solve a problem faster, I personally find that practice hugely unethical. You developed these skills on your former employer's time, and either you know the information well enough to do it again from memory, or you should learn it again on your new employers time. Otherwise the new company is unjustly benefiting from the previous company's investment in you.

Post reply on HN