Live data from Hacker News

A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

wired.com

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#61
post #59

I am a bit surprised that most comments here focus on whether the guy's genuine or not. What surprised me, in a bad way, is that to challenge a patent you have to have 6k USD to throw away plus the expertise and time (which the article estimates at 60k USD). IMHO, if the patent ends up overturned, the patent holder should be liable for those costs. In fact, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be that way. Ca…

Why is the US Patent Office not liable for these obviously bad patent grants?

I think this patent mess ends when the Patent Office isn't self funded and thus doesn't have the perverse incentive to grant as many patents as possible.

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#62
post #59

I am a bit surprised that most comments here focus on whether the guy's genuine or not. What surprised me, in a bad way, is that to challenge a patent you have to have 6k USD to throw away plus the expertise and time (which the article estimates at 60k USD). IMHO, if the patent ends up overturned, the patent holder should be liable for those costs. In fact, I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be that way. Ca…

USPTO acts as the gate. If a patent is overturned, in theory the USPTO should be the institution paying for their diligence failure.

Up until the patent is issued, all costs are on the applicant. Why should the costs of an error by a regulator also be on the requestor?

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#63
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would understand if it was a small small startup like his that was in trouble, but even if Uber got in trouble for violating the patents, its still just research for developing self-driving cars that isn't critical to their day to day business. I am not asking why bother helping a company in a similar situation, but why bother helping a company that didn't really need helping?

There are many people who believe that this trial is very important to the survival of Uber. If they lose -- or otherwise can't develop self-driving cars -- they are 100% permanently screwed. They are burning through way too much money and it's simply not sustainable long term. If they can bring self-driving cars to market -- allowing them to not have to pay drivers -- they'll be able to survive and may even do quite…

Serious question- what is it that Uber does that requires such a burn rate? They've offloaded fleet costs on to the people that drive for them. Their mobile client apps don't need to do much. Whatever they need to run server-side isn't going to be rocket surgery, either.

(I understand that trying to develop self-driving cars is going to be a huge R&D expense. I'm talking about their day-to-day operational costs.)

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#65
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it benefit Uber or its backers to hire him unofficially instead of hiring experts directly? It seems like he was able to make a solid case for invalidating the patent, and hiring experts to investigate patent claims is pretty standard in patent lawsuits. It makes me wonder why Uber didn't hire such experts, or if they did and this guy beat them to the punch.

Yeah, it makes Uber look kind of incompetent, like they didn't do their research (Google too). If he was hired by Uber to do the research, only Google would look incompetent.

It makes their experts look incompetent. Quite a bit of what this guy found should have been low-hanging fruit for an expert witness.

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people who believe that this trial is very important to the survival of Uber. If they lose -- or otherwise can't develop self-driving cars -- they are 100% permanently screwed. They are burning through way too much money and it's simply not sustainable long term. If they can bring self-driving cars to market -- allowing them to not have to pay drivers -- they'll be able to survive and may even do quite…

Serious question- what is it that Uber does that requires such a burn rate? They've offloaded fleet costs on to the people that drive for them. Their mobile client apps don't need to do much. Whatever they need to run server-side isn't going to be rocket surgery, either. (I understand that trying to develop self-driving cars is going to be a huge R&D expense. I'm talking about their day-to-day operational costs.)

The largest cost will be in sales and marketing. They offer large incentives to get drivers to sign up, such as offering cash for becoming an Uber driver. They also want to provide the best price possible to consumers, so that sometimes that means selling below cost, or at least selling below the cost when all sales and marketing expenses are included.

Growing so quickly in a short period of time there is also typically some level of over staffing as well as generally not being 100% diligent with use of funds.

There was an article before how they were spending over $100MM with an ad agency only to realize the numbers were inflated and eventually dropping them, but that is just one example of ineffective spend.

That's not to imply that they are 50% ineffective, but even being 10% ineffective when budgets are in the billions adds up.

The thought process is that the cost of switching between providers is very low when it comes to Uber/Lyft, when the cost of switching is low to consumers you want to establish your dominance in that market as rapidly as possible otherwise if you move slowly, then a competitor can steal market share away from you.

If there are any network effects to market penetration then that begins to create a bit of a moat. So if you think about the availability of cars/drivers at any time of the day to meet the demand, then having a large marketshare is beneficial to getting a ride for a customer quickly. That couple with marketing and lowering the cost of the ride as much as possible to establish the market is where the majority of that money goes.

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#67
In my experience, patent lawyers just keep writing claims until they feel they cover enough to be likely something novel in there. Not a lot of expertise on anybody's part. Lots of software patents in particular wander around making tiny claims for bits and pieces of the system, probably in the hope that something will stick. Not a fan of the process.

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question- what is it that Uber does that requires such a burn rate? They've offloaded fleet costs on to the people that drive for them. Their mobile client apps don't need to do much. Whatever they need to run server-side isn't going to be rocket surgery, either. (I understand that trying to develop self-driving cars is going to be a huge R&D expense. I'm talking about their day-to-day operational costs.)

The largest cost will be in sales and marketing. They offer large incentives to get drivers to sign up, such as offering cash for becoming an Uber driver. They also want to provide the best price possible to consumers, so that sometimes that means selling below cost, or at least selling below the cost when all sales and marketing expenses are included. Growing so quickly in a short period of time there is also typica…

You raise a good point about how the cost of switching on the consumer side being low implies that establishing a dominant mindshare becomes that much more important. Thanks for the answer.

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#69
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine spending $6k is a consideration even for a millionaire. Spending the time to research and write a 101-page challenge to the patent seems like quite a considerable investment for anyone, dwarfing the $6k even for a middle class person. Why do you think $6k is not a consideration given his liquid capital? What do you expect his liquid wealth to be and what do you base that on?

If he owns a house which is worth at least 5.5M USD then he's more than a millionaire; at least a multimillionaire. Just to put it in perspective: 6k USD is 0,6% of 1M USD. If I got a savings of 10k USD, and I donate 0,6% of that to EFF during Christmas, then we're talking about 60 USD while I keep 9940 USD or 99,4%. Even that doesn't tell us much though because your networth isn't descriptive to your income. If you…

> If you own 0,5M but you don't have income that's something different than owning 0,5k but having 2k to spend every month.

I think this is the key. Having a big fancy house usually comes with a big fancy mortgage, and who knows what his cashflow looks like. Did he invest his windfall and lose it? Did the tax man take it? Did his wife leave him soon after along with "half"? Any massive medical situations he's dealt with in his family? Is he heavily invested in a new project?

The claim is not that $6,000 is a hardship to him, just that it is not "a drop in the bucket". Ie, $6K is not an amount he would spend unthinkingly because of having so much money. Depending on where you live it's not odd to know people in houses worth over a million but who couldn't pick up a another car because the monthly payments would be too much. Technically they can afford it, but practically it's not "a drop in the bucket", so they have other priorities.

Re: A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

#70
post #65
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it makes Uber look kind of incompetent, like they didn't do their research (Google too). If he was hired by Uber to do the research, only Google would look incompetent.

It makes their experts look incompetent. Quite a bit of what this guy found should have been low-hanging fruit for an expert witness.

Any chance they were saving that for the trial?

Strategically, isn't it better for Uber to let Waymo yap on and on about it and then crush them during the trial than to ask the patent office for a review and let Waymo drop the issue before the trial even starts?

I mean... if I knew something embarrassing that opposing council didn't know, and I had no obligation to inform them, I would definitely see that knowledge as a weapon and a strategic tool. Letting Waymo drop it without embarrassment is a bit of a win for Waymo, IMO.

Post reply on HN