Google accused of racketeering in lawsuit

Post by rdtsc » Sat, Oct 07, 2017, 6:29 AM UTC

bogomipz wrote: post #22

rdtsc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true? It depends on details of his contract. It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money. It's pretty standard stuff. In other words, it might not be exactly a slam dunk case. A racketeering charge seems pretty outrageous as well. However if Google did these things (which look…

>"It's quite plausible his employment contract in "Project X" did say that he would transfer knowledge and ideas in exchange for money." I'm curious about your comment that this is "pretty standard stuff." Do you mean in the context of Google X agreements? Do you transfer intellectual property to them as part of the employment contract? Are you paid a flat fee? Do they pay a "kill" fee if Google X ultimately decides…

Post by paul7986 » Sat, Oct 07, 2017, 6:29 AM UTC

alehul wrote: post #2

> Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but a judge in the case noted last year that the firm has argued that Attia gave Google rights to his technology “without a condition of later payment.” So Google's defense isn't even that the substance of the accusations are false, but that they had the legal ability to do so? Is this common behavior for Google, if the story is true? This may be naive, b…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 07, 2017, 6:31 AM UTC

saimiam wrote: post #45

arkj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The way I see it, you are essentially asking people not to learn from each other. I dont think he sayimg anything like that. There's a big difference between learning from each other and baiting you for your secret sauce.

1. Baiting is learning though. 2. "Baiting" is an opinion. I have no doubt OP got baited in his view but to Google, it might have been simply the asking of questions. Maybe the questions were asked to make sure OP's technology was sufficiently different and inferior to whatever they themselves launched. If that were the case, it wouldn't be baiting. It'd be discovery.

Post by rightos » Sat, Oct 07, 2017, 6:36 AM UTC

Bucephalus355 wrote: post #56

paul7986 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a weird company. Consider this, their CEO Eric Schmidt, technically Alphabet’s), has a voracious prostitute-appetite. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371719/Googles-Eric...

Post by IBM » Sat, Oct 07, 2017, 6:37 AM UTC

stingrae wrote: post #37

IBM wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Uber became Public Enemy #1 and prior to the Otto/Levandowski dispute, Google was planning on competing with Uber despite being an investor, which led Kalanick to e-mail David Drummond about it [1]. Drummond eventually left Uber's board (which harkens back to Schmidt leaving Apple's board) but this was well after the relationship had been deteriorating. [1] http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/595ea97dd9fc…

Was that really surprising? The company that builds the first self driving cars will have an easy entrance into the ride service industry.