101–110 of 134 posts
Link 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.
The 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".
>>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…
Levandowski took a bunch of stuff from Waymo. There seems to be very little doubt of that. Levandowski, while in possession of those documents, formed Otto. Uber bought Otto. Therefore, Uber bought a company that included a person who stole a bunch of documents from Waymo.
Now: Did Uber get access to the documents? Did Levandowski not show them the documents, but just use the contents to give guidance/instructions/knowledge? Either of those would be "Uber taking the technology".
Or did Levandowski just put those files away on a drive somewhere, and never use them while at Otto or Uber? I don't believe that for a minute, but it's possible (from the evidence so far).
As I've pointed out before, the whole LIDAR thing is a side issue. Google's LIDAR is another Velodyne-like spinning thing. Google's patented innovation is to make each scan beam slightly oval, which is marginally useful but not essential. Spinning 3D LIDAR units are research and prototyping tools. The future is either flash LIDAR or MEMS. Even Velodyne is moving beyond the spinning top thing.[1]
Here's a video with some images from Continental's flash LIDAR.[2] That's suitable for production cars. Continental is a big German auto parts company. They make other LIDAR products, vehicle cameras and processors, radars, GPS units, and most of the other parts needed for self-driving. Continental demoed a self-driving car in 2013. They have 1,300 people working on this. Uber makes a lot of noise, but Continental is going to ship product in volume.
Quanergy, a Silicon Valley startup, announced a flash LIDAR last year, but they seem to be having problems getting it out the door. A new startup, TetraView, got series A funding to develop a higher resolution flash LIDAR ("2K", they boast), using standard CMOS technology.[3] That, if it works, will bring the price down further while increasing the resolution, and will have other robotics applications.
So nobody really needs the Waymo LIDAR technology. For testing, you can buy a Velodyne, and for production, the flash LIDAR people are almost ready.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/velodyne-lidar-enters-the... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxy08YX0C8w [3] http://www.tetravue.com/technology/
This ruling was actually relatively good news for Uber, it could have been worse. It's only a partial preliminary injunction, they can still continue working on self-driving technology.
The 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 :(.
Edit: thank you for editing your comment (after I replied with mine) to divulge that you're an alphabet employee. Your behavior is commendable.
Edit 2: seriously?! A comment expecting people on both sides to disclose their affiliations was flagged?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it either. CNBC has webservers and presumably some sort of in-house or external CDN. Why host on Scribd?
Embedding
Eg, Chrome in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history
Firefox in 2012 http://news.softpedia.com/news/PDF-JS-and-Download-Manager-P...
if this is all legit, it baffles me that this guy thought he would be able to 'download' anything and take it and not be caught... weird
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
Odd, I can see all 26 pages. I'm not signed up.