Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#111

Post by rogerdonaldson »

joshuamorton wrote: post #90
pfarnsworth wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "In fact, reading the trade secret infringement part, it reads as though there's no question that levandowski stole documents and that those documents were used to create Uber's lidar using proprietary information from Google." If this is your conclusion, then I think you misread what the injunction said. The point of the expedited discovery is to figure out whether or not the documents were used by Uber. The idea…

"Again, that Fuji -- and, at least on the record, no other LiDAR -- copies specific GBr3 specifications is striking evidence suggesting that at least some evidence from Waymo's files has already found its way into Uber's Lidar designs." "At this stage, that is sufficient to extrapolate that at least some of the information in the 14,000-plus downloads likely qualifies for trade secret protection, and certain relief i…

Btw, how do they prevent "reverse theft" here? When Google looks at Uber designs, couldnt they learn from them and incorporate the learnings back into their designs?

Regardless of whether Uber's design is using some of Waymo's design concepts -- I am sure there will be a lot of different aspects in Uber's designs some of which could be useful for Waymo.

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#112

Post by linkregister »

MBCook wrote: post #5
tomglynch wrote: post #2

How do they go about enforcing this?

That's my question. Given that Uber claims they weren't using the technology... how can you tell if they stopped? Just forbid them from using LIDAR altogether?

This is answered in the actual injunction document.

Uber is required to perform a thorough accounting of any design aspects stemming from the trade secrets noted in Waymo's filing. Uber is required to interview all individuals who worked with Levandowski to circumvent Levandowski's usage of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination protections. If Uber can't compel the information the court seeks, it must use its full authority to obtain it. Judge Alsop explicitly says Uber must terminate any uncooperative employee.

A Waymo attorney and an expert get to audit Uber's self-driving technology to identify aspects of the trade secrets annotated in Waymo's filing.

The enforcement is that if Waymo's expert and attorney unearth any lack of compliance by Uber, they can face Contempt of Court charges. Since Waymo is pursuing this case zealously, I expect this to be enough incentive for Uber to follow the court order in good faith.

In the past, Uber has complied with discovery motions even when the results embarrassed the company, e.g. the executive venting: about how he wishes he could dig up dirt to discredit a journalist.

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#113

Post by joshuamorton »

rogerdonaldson wrote: post #111
joshuamorton wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Again, that Fuji -- and, at least on the record, no other LiDAR -- copies specific GBr3 specifications is striking evidence suggesting that at least some evidence from Waymo's files has already found its way into Uber's Lidar designs." "At this stage, that is sufficient to extrapolate that at least some of the information in the 14,000-plus downloads likely qualifies for trade secret protection, and certain relief i…

Btw, how do they prevent "reverse theft" here? When Google looks at Uber designs, couldnt they learn from them and incorporate the learnings back into their designs? Regardless of whether Uber's design is using some of Waymo's design concepts -- I am sure there will be a lot of different aspects in Uber's designs some of which could be useful for Waymo.

Elsewhere in the thread its been explained that "google get's to look at Uber's Lidar" is really "Google's lawyers and some non-employee experts get to look at Uber's Lidar". Essentially its Chinese walled, your average Waymo engineer (in fact probably every waymo engineer) isn't going to see the documents.

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#114

Post by joshuamorton »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #100
joshuamorton wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Again, that Fuji -- and, at least on the record, no other LiDAR -- copies specific GBr3 specifications is striking evidence suggesting that at least some evidence from Waymo's files has already found its way into Uber's Lidar designs." "At this stage, that is sufficient to extrapolate that at least some of the information in the 14,000-plus downloads likely qualifies for trade secret protection, and certain relief i…

"likely infringes" is absolutely false. Your bias is showing. There's evidence. But not enough for a preliminary injunction, which is why there's going to be a trial. If there were a smoking gun, then they would have issues a preliminary injunction. And there hasn't even been a question as to whether or not these are trade secrets. That's part of the trial.

1. A preliminary injunction was issued, just not a sweeping one

2. "is striking evidence" is a phrase that to me implies that the Uber lidar likely infringes, please explain if you disagree.

3. Speaking of bias, elsewhere in this thread you say "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." [0]. Given that Alsup believes that Waymo has demonstrated "striking evidence" to the contrary, will you revise that position?

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14342469

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#115

Post by linkregister »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #40
manyoso wrote: post #29

Earlier 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…

I think we read the injunction differently. On pages 13-15, Judge Alsop states that he found two instances of what he thought was obvious influence of trade secrets.

I agree that this was Alsop's backhanded way of getting Uber to fire Levandowski; either Levandowski will reveal the documents and face prison, or he never had them on personal devices and Uber still has to fire him because he didn't produce them.

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#116

Post by linkregister »

manyoso wrote: post #92
pfarnsworth wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're presuming that they will find something. I'm presuming they won't. None of the technology made it into Uber's Lidar design, and already no evidence was found that a single document made its way into Uber's servers. Remember, they already went through a round of discovery and they found nothing. The idea that Levandowski would be telling people "Well, from Google's documents, I remember x y z" sounds awfully ri…

I think the Judge is very clearly signaling that if any pilfered files were used by Uber that he is intent on getting to the bottom of it. And that all the claims of privilege that Uber has been claiming so far in the expedited discovery is about to go bye bye. The head of research on LIDAR at Uber had 14,000 files from Google that were pilfered before he left and he did this for purely for shits and giggles and not…

The narrative of Levandowski's theft of the documents is premature. If you read the forensic examiner's report, it amounts to "checked out project using TortoiseSVN, plugged in a USB device, installed proprietary Google Linux distribution." The "wiped" adjective is inaccurate since a disk format is required to install Linux. Levandowski didn't zero the hard drive or anything like that. There's no evidence yet that Waymo files touched anyone's personal device.

That said, on pages 13-15 of the injunction document, Judge Alsop sees clear influence of trade secrets in the design of the Lidar's PCB. This is the damning portion that lead to the injunction.

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#117

Post by linkregister »

waisbrot wrote: post #74
mahyarm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you although? Show us what is on every hard drive you ever owned? Uber doesnt have access to googles internal security logs.

The court order says that Uber was talking with Levandowski about buying his company _while he was still working at Google_: > Meanwhile, emails between Uber executives on January 12 and January 13 showed they had prepared a document titled “NewCo Milestones v5” for Levandowski to review in advance of a meeting the following day. He didn't quit until the 27th. If you're poaching someone highly-placed off of your comp…

Is this industry standard? I'm not high-level so I wouldn't know. Are you saying this because you have first-hand knowledge?

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#118

Post by dsacco »

rimjeilly wrote: post #63

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

You'd be shocked how many engineers I've had to personally tell not to download pirated media or porn on their work computers.

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#119

Post by linkregister »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #88
joshuamorton wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did. The injunction states that the Fuji lidar may be infringing on trade secrets, the court can't rule and is unwilling got make a prelim injunction, telling Uber to chuck it off a cliff, but will allow expert analysis to confirm. The problem is that Waymo made some overbroad claims and so Alsup is punishing them for it by making the injunciton weaker (and he states as much in footnote 6). That's also what is cove…

> "In fact, reading the trade secret infringement part, it reads as though there's no question that levandowski stole documents and that those documents were used to create Uber's lidar using proprietary information from Google." If this is your conclusion, then I think you misread what the injunction said. The point of the expedited discovery is to figure out whether or not the documents were used by Uber. The idea…

Instead of using the "code"-style formatting with four spaces, please use this format:

* > If this is your conclusion, *

// ^ remove the space between the asterisk and the text

Those on mobile or who don't want to scroll far thank you.

Re: Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo

#120

Post by linkregister »

joshuamorton wrote: post #113
rogerdonaldson wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Btw, how do they prevent "reverse theft" here? When Google looks at Uber designs, couldnt they learn from them and incorporate the learnings back into their designs? Regardless of whether Uber's design is using some of Waymo's design concepts -- I am sure there will be a lot of different aspects in Uber's designs some of which could be useful for Waymo.

Elsewhere in the thread its been explained that "google get's to look at Uber's Lidar" is really "Google's lawyers and some non-employee experts get to look at Uber's Lidar". Essentially its Chinese walled, your average Waymo engineer (in fact probably every waymo engineer) isn't going to see the documents.

Not to discount HN legal experts, but nowhere is third-party examination mentioned in the document. "Waymo attorney" and "Waymo expert" are the terms used.

Edit: I don't think there's much risk of this. It's illegal enough that I doubt an individual engineer would risk prison over the corporation they happened to work for.

Post reply on HN