Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what's the real number?
AFAIK there is not enough publicly available data to answer this question.
Oh no! It's probably even worse then! /s
The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
111–120 of 542 posts
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a stupid moonshot play. They should have just focused on being a really good taxi company.
Their "taxi" business model was completely unsustainable. A moonshot was/is the only thing that'd save them. That's why they did this (the self-driving part we know for sure, and the alleged stuff, if proven).
Taxi services are a centuries-old profitable business model (London had first laws regulating "taxis" in the 1600s).
Dispatch via app is a solid improvement over the old phonecalls or street pickup, automatic credit card billing is an improvement over cash, and in cities with shady taxi drivers, GPS tracking is an improvement over potentially hacked taxi meters.
So there is an obviously valuable business model for "taxi dispatch app" here even without a moonshot - just perhaps smaller than Uber's dream of being the only provider of personal transportation in the world.
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#113[deleted]
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#114Outside of the case, the most striking thing to me about this is the level of detail that Google has over the logs and actions of their laptop. They were able to tell that a memory card was plugged in for 8 hours a year ago? I have trouble finding exactly how a customer encountered a 500 10 minutes ago.
Yeah I really enjoyed the technical details in Gary Brown's deposition: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515476-Declaration-... . It looks like they could see: * When the device made check-ins to their management server, and appeared on the Google network * That the Windows OS was re-installed * MoMA search queries (some kind of internal system?) for "chauffeur svn login" * Downloading and installing Tortoise…
Just think of "MoMA" as "the intranet," which is about the best way to explain it. Not super interesting.
Weird that he'd allegedly type "I've never logged into Subversion before, but suddenly I need access" into MoMA, but hey. The whole saga just reminds me that people are really bad at opsec.
The Google Drive/GAIA linkage is the most interesting technical revelation from a quick read. I'm surprised they didn't redact that little trick, because that seems to be the best way to catch the very people doing this. Most people would be forgiven for assuming that a Google consumer product might be a little more obfuscated in terms of forensics (logs access, PII, etc), and I could see that train of thought even though it's dumb. I guess they're willing to burn the technique, because the next person who attempts this will definitely avoid Google Drive.
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#115if it plays out that Lewandowski did intentionally steal trade secrets, the way he went about it was pretty boneheaded.
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Uber be awarded licensing terms they could "live with" for code they (allegedly) outright stole from a competitor?
Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
Google Ventures owns only 6% of Uber. If they can drag this out sufficently, then Uber cannot IPO, will have burnt all their cash - and the whole company will be at the mercy of their biggest creditor who just got awarded a billion-dollar penalty payment.
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Uber be awarded licensing terms they could "live with" for code they (allegedly) outright stole from a competitor?
Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
I did not know they invest in Uber! That makes this even more interesting.
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
But if Google won a huge judgement they would outright own the company and not just be an investor.
They'd own a broken company. Bear in mind that this sort of litigation can run five to ten years if you let the lawyers on both sides wrestle to their hearts' content. It becomes all consuming. Executives spend much of their time preparing for depositions, tussling about what ambiguous documents mean, tussling about what obvious documents might mean if you try hard to misinterpet them, etc.
It's no fun to be working in such an environment. Everyone who can afford to get out, gets out.
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#119For all the noise and excitement at the start of these clashes, don't they usually get settled with a licensing agreement that both sides can live with? Sometimes we also see a medium-sized payment (not ruinous) to address the allegedly bad conduct. That usually gets paired with some lawyer-like phrases that amount to a blend of quasi-apology and face-saving evasions. It's still an interesting suit. But after Apple/S…
Why would Uber be awarded licensing terms they could "live with" for code they (allegedly) outright stole from a competitor?
It is typical for the terms of the license include giving back and not using the actually stolen documents/code. The license would just allow them to redesign without worrying about the other party indirectly using the trade secrets. It's because you can't really close pandora's box.
Though in many cases its beneficial to use this as a way to become a key supplier to a competitor. If it's not a winner take all market (and I doubt this is), then it might be more profitable to take a cut from Uber than to reduce competition by one.
A Google / Uber joint venture where Google provides the software and Uber does fleet management could be unbeatable, for example.
Re: The Uber Bombshell About to Drop
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
But if Google won a huge judgement they would outright own the company and not just be an investor.
Or they could just buy Uber. The thing is they likely wouldn't want to own Uber, especially considering it's just burning through mega-cash.