Link to the full injunction text: https://www.scribd.com/document/348409551/Waymo-Uber-Injunct...
DocumentCloud version (posted by Forbes): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3720936-Unsealed-Ord...
Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
51–60 of 134 posts
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#52The title screams bias and misinformation. It presumes Uber took technology from Waymo, which the judge rules against by stating that "Waymo’s patent theories are too weak to support any provisional relief" and "it has become clear that Waymo has both overreached in defining its trade secrets and made moving targets out of its asserted trade secrets to evade defensive arguments".
Contrary, it says that Uber either knew or should have known that he took those 14,000 files and that undoubtedly those files were used by Uber to develop LIDAR. It says that Waymo has shown evidence of trade secret misuse enough to grant provisional relief.
It is not a knock out blow against Uber, but look at the relief granted with regard to more discover. Uber has to do a complete accounting of everyone who talked to Lewandowsky about LIDAR and the contents and dates of those conversations. They have to get every employee under oath saying whether they used any info or knew of any info in those 14,000 files.
In short, Uber didn't get knocked out by this order, but it certainly sets them up for getting knocked out as the Judge clearly is interested in getting to the bottom of this.
If evidence exists that Uber knew of or used information in those 14,000 files ... the Judge and Waymo are determined to find it. I think that is bad for Uber know matter how you look at it.
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#53The title screams bias and misinformation. It presumes Uber took technology from Waymo, which the judge rules against by stating that "Waymo’s patent theories are too weak to support any provisional relief" and "it has become clear that Waymo has both overreached in defining its trade secrets and made moving targets out of its asserted trade secrets to evade defensive arguments".
Are you an Uber employee? Curious for full disclosure. I'm an Alphabet employee but not one working on Waymo-related projects, nor am I a lawyer who feels qualified to comment on this situation. Wish Groklaw was still around to interpret these rulings for us :(.
Are you demanding the same standard from commenters whose comment screams Google, Waymo, Lyft or Tesla employee?
I agree with you that Uber employees should divulge their affiliation, but so should those with a conflict of interest against Uber.
Edit: thank you for editing your comment (after I replied with mine) to divulge that you're an alphabet employee. Your behavior is commendable.
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
With how many questionable practices Uber is guilty of partaking in, I wouldn't be surprised if attempting to manipulate Hacker News was one of them.
think it's funny you say that when the company I see the most employees from on HN is Google.
(Fitting the rule, I'm a googler).
It helps that Google employs about 10x as many people as Uber does. Its the same reason you see lots of Microsoft SWEs here.
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Waymo laywers are very happy with the expedited discovery ruling and the order that Uber must make every effort to compel the return of the 14,000 files. This might not have been the bombshell ruling against Uber that they were hoping for, but it sets up that bombshell ruling if they can actually find the evidence with this new discovery.
I disagree. It's only good if they find something, which to me is doubtful given the fact they didn't find something already, and given the fact that the judge didn't issue a single injunction against Uber for trade secrets. As far as I can tell from reading the injunction, there wasn't a single case of a trade secret from those documents making its way into Uber's technology. The fact that none of the technology mad…
It isn't just the order to return the documents. Uber is compelled by June 23rd for a complete and chronological record of everyone at Uber or on behalf of Uber who discussed LIDAR with Anthony and what they talked about. They have to question all of these people about knowledge about those 14,000 files and contents.
Under oath. How many employees do you think that is? How many people?
If Anthony discussed these 14,000 files with anyone - which is not a stretch to think that he has - then they have to admit it under oath or deny it under oath. You think others are going to want to perjure themselves for Uber?
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#56Link to the full injunction text: https://www.scribd.com/document/348409551/Waymo-Uber-Injunct...
"3 pages available to preview" Man I hate Scribd. Why does anyone use it? No, I do not want to download your app to read a PDF, and I don't understand why CNBC published it through your service.
I don't want to sign up to read a document either, thanks.
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>It presumes Uber took technology from Waymo, which the judge rules against FTFA: "Judge William Alsup in San Francisco says in the ruling that Waymo has shown “compelling evidence” that a former star engineer named Anthony Levandowski downloaded confidential files before leaving Waymo. The Judge also says evidence shows that before he left Waymo, Levandowski and Uber planned for Uber to acquire a company formed by…
Wow I didn't know there was more than one way to write Monte Carlo, Haar, Point-cloud algorithms. At what point does "hire an engineer to do something" become "common-knowledge"?
(am a googler)
The accusation here is that Levandowski stole proprietary hardware designs, not algorithms. (well there was also an allegation that he stole "math" but alsup denied that)
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber should start a suit against Levandowski.
Uber should have uncovered this during due diligence. I'm not sure if they can even sue Levandowski at this point.
How can you although? Show us what is on every hard drive you ever owned? Uber doesnt have access to googles internal security logs.
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#59How do they go about enforcing this?
As I understand it, Google is granted expedited discovery and Uber basically has to allow Google to give a stamp of approval that they aren't using stolen tech. I imagine that puts the burden of proof of "stolen tech" on Google though, so they can't just make claims without evidence. Any attorneys want to confirm/correct my understanding?
I can't comment on the ins and outs of discovery, but I will point out that "Google" is inaccurate - the plaintiff is Waymo, which is a sibling company to Google.
Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
#60Link to the full injunction text: https://www.scribd.com/document/348409551/Waymo-Uber-Injunct...
"3 pages available to preview" Man I hate Scribd. Why does anyone use it? No, I do not want to download your app to read a PDF, and I don't understand why CNBC published it through your service.
I don't get it either. CNBC has webservers and presumably some sort of in-house or external CDN. Why host on Scribd?