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

Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#71

Post by yawaworht12 »

burntrelish1273 wrote: post #9

Let's not jump to conclusions: Waymo maybe looking to sharp-elbow into ride-sharing. These are still allegations and there's no verdict/settlement yet. In general, the bigger the venture, the bigger the damage of acting dishonestly and the bigger the bulls' eye for lawsuits painted on the side. Uber, being the category first-mover, is going to attract a lot of hate by being giant and uncool, even without the politica…

At this point I think they are trying the Microsoft/Oracle strategy. It looks like they are using a lawsuit and the discovery process are to get enough information to determine which, if any, of their patents may have been infringed and they are now trying to figure out how to extract rent from the first-mover. It's hard to assert patents against black boxes that you don't know the implementation details of. Using discovery to pry open the black box is underhanded but one way to get a look at an implementation normally hidden from view. It's a slimy tactic but given how profitable patent royalties are I can't blame them for trying.

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#72

Post by djsumdog »

yawaworht12 wrote: post #30
OliverJones wrote: post #29

Just an observation .... locating the 20th century car industry in Detroit gave them an unfair advantage over California. Cars have to function correctly in bad weather -- rain, ice, snow, etc. Taxicabs especially. Imagine a transport system in a city like New York or DC where taxis don't function in a rainstorm. It's in bad weather that drivers earn their pay. I know from experience that the Tesla driver assistance…

Like Pittsburgh?

Where an Uber autonomous vehicle went the wrong way up a 1-way street?

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#73

Post by djsumdog »

OliverJones wrote: post #29

Just an observation .... locating the 20th century car industry in Detroit gave them an unfair advantage over California. Cars have to function correctly in bad weather -- rain, ice, snow, etc. Taxicabs especially. Imagine a transport system in a city like New York or DC where taxis don't function in a rainstorm. It's in bad weather that drivers earn their pay. I know from experience that the Tesla driver assistance…

> It's going to take 30 to convert the transport network.

I think the tech is amazing from a software standpoint, but the amount of resources being dumped into self-driving cars could be better spent fixing our broken (non-existent) mass transit system in America first. I wrote a post on this a few months ago:

http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-sol...

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#74

Post by dllthomas »

vermontdevil wrote: post #50
yawaworht12 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Pittsburgh?

Especially Pittsburgh with bridges and hills.

I think the point was that Uber's self-driving effort is located in Pittsburgh, so when the parent says

> Maybe these Sili Valley types should stop fighting over fair-weather car control stuff, and spend the same money setting up development shops somewhere besides endless-summer California.

that's exactly what Uber's done.

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#75

Post by nradov »

yawaworht12 wrote: post #63
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't really matter whether they went forward with the design or not. Google alleged "You took our lidar design, and you could only have gotten that design if Levandowski stole it." Uber initially: "No we didn't!" Uber later: "Actually, here it is, but doesn't matter because we don't like that design anyway." Uber is playing games that 5 year-olds play when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Let's assume for a moment that this previous design bore many similarities to the google design (which could have happened just because the same people built it not solely because stolen files were used), what if the previous design were only worked on when it was Otto and was discarded when Uber acquired Otto? What would happen then? Google has specifically stated that their suit is against Uber and not Levandowsky.…

That's not how the US legal system works. When Uber acquired Otto they became subject to all legal claims against Otto. The notion that an acquisition should somehow extinguish liability is just ridiculous; it would lead to companies engaging in all sorts of shell game M&A activity just to dodge lawsuits.

Re: Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied

#76

Post by nradov »

rayiner wrote: post #52
mannykannot wrote: post #46

I know the law has a complicated relationship with logic, but in normal usage, Uber's claim that it is no longer interested in LIDAR, even if taken at face value, clearly has no bearing on the question of whether it was party to an earlier theft of LIDAR-related documents.

> Uber denies this and says it eventually produced the device in question. A representative for Uber told Recode the company did not initially produce the device because they did not think they were required to do so as its designs had been abandoned. In litigation, one side serves the other side "discovery requests," which are pointed requests for specifically described documents or information. Everyone produces as…

Alternatively, some litigants produce as much as they can get away with in order to flood their opponent with irrelevant documents, drive up their legal costs, and delay the case.
Post reply on HN