Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by linkregister » Tue, May 16, 2017, 9:36 PM UTC

i_like_lamp wrote: post #121

linkregister wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Wa…

Agree. There was a good analysis of the forensic expert's testimony by some other users here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591 There's a link to the testimony in that topmost comment too for those that want to read it for themselves.

Ha! That was me. Looks like I am the only one who holds that opinion around here.

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

#132

Post by pfarnsworth » Wed, May 17, 2017, 2:57 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #130

pfarnsworth wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Striking evidence" is just that. Evidence. I'll wait for the results of the hearing to see what the overall judgement is. Have you forgotten that all trials have evidence both for and against? But the evidence wasn't enough to issue a preliminary injunction, which means that there is no smoking gun. A preliminary injunction was issues against Levandowski, because as the judge said, there is more than enough evidence…

>Evidence. I'll wait for the results of the hearing to see what the overall judgement is. Have you forgotten that all trials have evidence both for and against? But the evidence wasn't enough to issue a preliminary injunction, which means that there is no smoking gun. Yes there was, that's what this document is. >A preliminary injunction was issues against Levandowski No, a preliminary injunction was issues against U…

You're reading it wrong.

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

#133

Post by dlubarov » Wed, May 17, 2017, 4:01 AM UTC

mixmastamyk wrote: post #109

mixmastamyk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to sign up to read a document either, thanks.

Looking back on this, I meant download.

As long as the server sends "Content-Disposition: inline", the browser should use its own PDF renderer (unless it doesn't have one, but I think that's rare these days).

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

#134

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, May 17, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #132

joshuamorton wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Evidence. I'll wait for the results of the hearing to see what the overall judgement is. Have you forgotten that all trials have evidence both for and against? But the evidence wasn't enough to issue a preliminary injunction, which means that there is no smoking gun. Yes there was, that's what this document is. >A preliminary injunction was issues against Levandowski No, a preliminary injunction was issues against U…

You're reading it wrong.

That's a strong accusation to make without any kind of supporting anything.