Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo(seattletimes.com)
seattletimes.com
Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/judge-orders-uber-not-to-use-technology-taken-from-waymo/
131 comments
The LIDAR is just how Waymo realized some of its technology had been stolen. Presumably, they want to use discovery to find what else has been stolen.
Some highlights from the injunction:
1. "Waymo’s patent theories are too weak to support any provisional relief."
2. "By contrast, the trade secrets case presented by Waymo does warrant provisional relief."
3. "Moreover, it has become clear that Waymo has both overreached in defining its trade secrets and made moving targets out of its asserted trade secrets to evade defensive arguments. Under these circumstances and on this record, no adverse inference that could be drawn in Waymo’s favor would justify overlooking these problems, pretending that all 121 of Waymo’s asserted trade secrets are valid, and enjoining defendants from using any of them so as to effectively halt Uber’s self-driving efforts until trial."
4. "Waymo is hereby granted further expedited discovery in aid of possible further provisional relief. Subject to the protective order, and upon reasonable notice, Waymo’s counsel and one expert may inspect any and all aspects of defendants’ ongoingwork involving LiDAR — including, without limitation,schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails — whether or not said work resulted in any prototype or device."
EDIT: one more I forgot, which is interesting:
5. This order, however, threatens no sanctions against Levandowski. It simply directs Uber, a private employer, to do whatever it can to ensure that its employees return 14,000-plus pilfered files to their rightful owner. If Uber were to threaten Levandowski with termination for noncompliance,that threat would be backed up by only Uber’s power as a private employer, and Levandowski would remainfree to forfeit his private employment to preserve his Fifth Amendment privilege. No binding case law holdsthat the Fifth Amendment prohibits such actions by private employers. In short, in complying with this order,Uber has no excuse under the Fifth Amendment to pull any punches as to Levandowski.
Basically, if Levandowski refuses to turn over the documents, Uber is forced to fire him, which means the $250,000,000 they already gave him goes up in smoke.
1. "Waymo’s patent theories are too weak to support any provisional relief."
2. "By contrast, the trade secrets case presented by Waymo does warrant provisional relief."
3. "Moreover, it has become clear that Waymo has both overreached in defining its trade secrets and made moving targets out of its asserted trade secrets to evade defensive arguments. Under these circumstances and on this record, no adverse inference that could be drawn in Waymo’s favor would justify overlooking these problems, pretending that all 121 of Waymo’s asserted trade secrets are valid, and enjoining defendants from using any of them so as to effectively halt Uber’s self-driving efforts until trial."
4. "Waymo is hereby granted further expedited discovery in aid of possible further provisional relief. Subject to the protective order, and upon reasonable notice, Waymo’s counsel and one expert may inspect any and all aspects of defendants’ ongoingwork involving LiDAR — including, without limitation,schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails — whether or not said work resulted in any prototype or device."
EDIT: one more I forgot, which is interesting:
5. This order, however, threatens no sanctions against Levandowski. It simply directs Uber, a private employer, to do whatever it can to ensure that its employees return 14,000-plus pilfered files to their rightful owner. If Uber were to threaten Levandowski with termination for noncompliance,that threat would be backed up by only Uber’s power as a private employer, and Levandowski would remainfree to forfeit his private employment to preserve his Fifth Amendment privilege. No binding case law holdsthat the Fifth Amendment prohibits such actions by private employers. In short, in complying with this order,Uber has no excuse under the Fifth Amendment to pull any punches as to Levandowski.
Basically, if Levandowski refuses to turn over the documents, Uber is forced to fire him, which means the $250,000,000 they already gave him goes up in smoke.
I think Waymo laywers are very happy with the expedited discovery ruling and the order that Uber must make every effort to compel the return of the 14,000 files.
This might not have been the bombshell ruling against Uber that they were hoping for, but it sets up that bombshell ruling if they can actually find the evidence with this new discovery.
This might not have been the bombshell ruling against Uber that they were hoping for, but it sets up that bombshell ruling if they can actually find the evidence with this new discovery.
I disagree. It's only good if they find something, which to me is doubtful given the fact they didn't find something already, and given the fact that the judge didn't issue a single injunction against Uber for trade secrets. As far as I can tell from reading the injunction, there wasn't a single case of a trade secret from those documents making its way into Uber's technology.
The fact that none of the technology made it into their Lidar designs makes it hard to believe that anything will be found. The idea that somehow discovery will determine there was something stolen seems pretty low at this point.
I agree that the order to compel returning the documents is interesting, and to me potentially the most "damaging" if they are forced to fire Levandowski.
The fact that none of the technology made it into their Lidar designs makes it hard to believe that anything will be found. The idea that somehow discovery will determine there was something stolen seems pretty low at this point.
I agree that the order to compel returning the documents is interesting, and to me potentially the most "damaging" if they are forced to fire Levandowski.
> The fact that none of the technology made it into their Lidar designs makes it hard to believe that anything will be found.
This is a bit confusing. If none of the technology made it into their designs, why was a manufacturer delivering a part proprietary to Google to them? That's my understanding of what kicked this whole thing off, Google being accidentally CC'd by a manufacturer for a purchase of a part that nobody else should have known about. If that's correct, while it doesn't necessarily mean that Google tech was utilized in some integral component, it does signal that they weren't averse to using that tech in some fashion.
I'm left wondering if the real meat of this case is to be found as Google examines the hardware, which it sounds like they've now been given the go ahead to do.
This is a bit confusing. If none of the technology made it into their designs, why was a manufacturer delivering a part proprietary to Google to them? That's my understanding of what kicked this whole thing off, Google being accidentally CC'd by a manufacturer for a purchase of a part that nobody else should have known about. If that's correct, while it doesn't necessarily mean that Google tech was utilized in some integral component, it does signal that they weren't averse to using that tech in some fashion.
I'm left wondering if the real meat of this case is to be found as Google examines the hardware, which it sounds like they've now been given the go ahead to do.
I don't work in hardware, but a friend of mine who does said that it's not really all that surprising for two companies to end up with similar designs if they are working on a similar problem AND are using the same supplier. The supplier is providing their own expertise and some of that expertise comes from working with other customers.
It isn't just the order to return the documents. Uber is compelled by June 23rd for a complete and chronological record of everyone at Uber or on behalf of Uber who discussed LIDAR with Anthony and what they talked about. They have to question all of these people about knowledge about those 14,000 files and contents.
Under oath. How many employees do you think that is? How many people?
If Anthony discussed these 14,000 files with anyone - which is not a stretch to think that he has - then they have to admit it under oath or deny it under oath. You think others are going to want to perjure themselves for Uber?
Under oath. How many employees do you think that is? How many people?
If Anthony discussed these 14,000 files with anyone - which is not a stretch to think that he has - then they have to admit it under oath or deny it under oath. You think others are going to want to perjure themselves for Uber?
You're presuming that they will find something. I'm presuming they won't. None of the technology made it into Uber's Lidar design, and already no evidence was found that a single document made its way into Uber's servers. Remember, they already went through a round of discovery and they found nothing. The idea that Levandowski would be telling people "Well, from Google's documents, I remember x y z" sounds awfully ridiculous.
I think the Judge is very clearly signaling that if any pilfered files were used by Uber that he is intent on getting to the bottom of it. And that all the claims of privilege that Uber has been claiming so far in the expedited discovery is about to go bye bye.
The head of research on LIDAR at Uber had 14,000 files from Google that were pilfered before he left and he did this for purely for shits and giggles and not in any way to use these files for anything in his future job? The Judge says in the order it is preposterous to think this. Still, it is up to Google to prove misuse and he is intent on giving them the discovery they need to do so if they can.
The head of research on LIDAR at Uber had 14,000 files from Google that were pilfered before he left and he did this for purely for shits and giggles and not in any way to use these files for anything in his future job? The Judge says in the order it is preposterous to think this. Still, it is up to Google to prove misuse and he is intent on giving them the discovery they need to do so if they can.
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 Waymo files touched anyone's personal device.
That said, on pages 13-15 of the injunction document, Judge Alsop sees clear influence of trade secrets in the design of the Lidar's PCB. This is the damning portion that lead to the injunction.
That said, on pages 13-15 of the injunction document, Judge Alsop sees clear influence of trade secrets in the design of the Lidar's PCB. This is the damning portion that lead to the injunction.
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.
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.
I think we read the injunction differently. On pages 13-15, Judge Alsop states that he found two instances of what he thought was obvious influence of trade secrets.
I agree that this was Alsop's backhanded way of getting Uber to fire Levandowski; either Levandowski will reveal the documents and face prison, or he never had them on personal devices and Uber still has to fire him because he didn't produce them.
I agree that this was Alsop's backhanded way of getting Uber to fire Levandowski; either Levandowski will reveal the documents and face prison, or he never had them on personal devices and Uber still has to fire him because he didn't produce them.
And if Levandowsky genuinely doesn't have the documents? After finally taking the time to read the forensic testimony myself, I found it very inconclusive. Yes, he may have taken the documents or he may not have. The evidence presented in the testimony was far from being a smoking gun. I highly encourage others to read the testimony for themselves and come to their own conclusion.
You could also look at it through a different lens. It seems that the scope of possible harm has been reduced from "everyone must stop working on SDCs" to "maybe you might need to let the Levandowsky guy go, and stop making your own lidar".
Also, from what I understand, the real benefit to uber was from Levandowsky bringing 100 former google eng with him to bootstrap uber SDC project. Well, those 100 eng are at uber now, or maybe they've moved on, but point being the damage is done, and you can't undo that.
Waymo wants uber SDC shut down, they feel robbed, and anything less than that in their view is not justice.
Also, from what I understand, the real benefit to uber was from Levandowsky bringing 100 former google eng with him to bootstrap uber SDC project. Well, those 100 eng are at uber now, or maybe they've moved on, but point being the damage is done, and you can't undo that.
Waymo wants uber SDC shut down, they feel robbed, and anything less than that in their view is not justice.
"It seems that the scope of possible harm has been reduced..."
The Judge specifically says in the ruling that a much stronger injunction can come at any point right up to the start of trial if Google is able to find additional evidence in the new discovery he is ordering. My read of the ruling is that the Judge expects that Google is likely to find just such evidence in the discovery he is newly ordering.
The Judge specifically says in the ruling that a much stronger injunction can come at any point right up to the start of trial if Google is able to find additional evidence in the new discovery he is ordering. My read of the ruling is that the Judge expects that Google is likely to find just such evidence in the discovery he is newly ordering.
how do they enforce this though? I mean they can return the files, but could have hidden copies any number of places.
Returning the files proves he has them. This isn't restitution, it's a play for an employer to skirt the 5th amendment. While he will not be forced to testify against himself, his employment is now tied to his willingness to do so.
Link to the full injunction text:
https://www.scribd.com/document/348409551/Waymo-Uber-Injunct...
Waymo is going to be able to inspect Uber's LIDAR and get additional expedited discovery:
"Waymo is hereby granted further expedited discovery in aid of possible further provisional relief. Subject to the protective order, and upon reasonable notice, Waymo’s counsel and one expert may inspect any and all aspects of defendants’ ongoing work involving LiDAR — including, without limitation,schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails — whether or not said work resulted in any prototype or device. Withrespect to its trade secret misappropriation claims only, Waymo may take seven further depositions on seven calendar days notice, may propound 28 reasonably narrow document requests for which the response time is reduced to 14 calendar days, and may propound 28 reasonably narrow interrogatories for which theresponse time is also reduced to 14 calendar days. If Waymo moves for further provisional relief before trial, then all its declarants in support of such motion must sit for depositions on an expedited basis. Otherwise, defendants may take only normal, unexpedited discovery. After Waymo has exhausted its expedited discovery, it may continue with normal discovery."
"Waymo is hereby granted further expedited discovery in aid of possible further provisional relief. Subject to the protective order, and upon reasonable notice, Waymo’s counsel and one expert may inspect any and all aspects of defendants’ ongoing work involving LiDAR — including, without limitation,schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails — whether or not said work resulted in any prototype or device. Withrespect to its trade secret misappropriation claims only, Waymo may take seven further depositions on seven calendar days notice, may propound 28 reasonably narrow document requests for which the response time is reduced to 14 calendar days, and may propound 28 reasonably narrow interrogatories for which theresponse time is also reduced to 14 calendar days. If Waymo moves for further provisional relief before trial, then all its declarants in support of such motion must sit for depositions on an expedited basis. Otherwise, defendants may take only normal, unexpedited discovery. After Waymo has exhausted its expedited discovery, it may continue with normal discovery."
Waymo is further granted the right to pull down the defendants' pants, and point and laugh at their genitals.
I mean, seriously, they've just been granted a shit load of access to their biggest competitors secrets. Pray they don't abuse that...
I mean, seriously, they've just been granted a shit load of access to their biggest competitors secrets. Pray they don't abuse that...
Doesn't work that way. When they say "Waymo", they really mean "Waymo's attorney's and hired independent expert(s)". The attorney's get to see the stuff as "Attorney's Eyes Only" (AEO) and then report back summaries to their clients. They have an ethical obligation not to disclose the full details.
Excellent point. My "pants down" joke, however, shall remain!
The lawyer can pull down the defendants' pants and point and laugh, then tell Waymo how funny it was.
Can you explain the joke?
Your comment was unexpected, and that actually made it fun. There's a theory about humor that it exists to expose wrong assumptions in a harmless way.
More: It's usually only outside counsel who gets to see that kind of stuff. Even corporate attorneys don't.
If Uber turns out to be innocent as they claim, can they then turn around and sue Waymo? The amount of information Waymo has gotten on a competitor through discovery seems highly prejudicial.
The lawsuit isn't really about protecting trade secrets for some soon-to-be-obsolete lidar technology, that's just a convenient tool for punishing Levandowski and Uber for hatching this scheme.
"3 pages available to preview"
Man I hate Scribd. Why does anyone use it? No, I do not want to download your app to read a PDF, and I don't understand why CNBC published it through your service.
Man I hate Scribd. Why does anyone use it? No, I do not want to download your app to read a PDF, and I don't understand why CNBC published it through your service.
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).
Odd, I can see all 26 pages. I'm not signed up.
There's probably a pay wall after a certain amount of page visits. The other users should clear that cookie.
I don't get it either. CNBC has webservers and presumably some sort of in-house or external CDN. Why host on Scribd?
Embedding
Haven't all modern browsers embedded PDFs natively for ages, now?
Eg, Chrome in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history
Firefox in 2012 http://news.softpedia.com/news/PDF-JS-and-Download-Manager-P...
Eg, Chrome in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history
Firefox in 2012 http://news.softpedia.com/news/PDF-JS-and-Download-Manager-P...
DocumentCloud version (posted by Forbes): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3720936-Unsealed-Ord...
This ruling was actually relatively good news for Uber, it could have been worse. It's only a partial preliminary injunction, they can still continue working on self-driving technology.
Whether they can continue with what they have remains to be seen. They are and always have been and probably will be in the future at liberty to start from a clean slate, so they're free to 'continue working on self-driving technology'.
How do they go about enforcing this?
As I understand it, Google is granted expedited discovery and Uber basically has to allow Google to give a stamp of approval that they aren't using stolen tech.
I imagine that puts the burden of proof of "stolen tech" on Google though, so they can't just make claims without evidence.
Any attorneys want to confirm/correct my understanding?
I imagine that puts the burden of proof of "stolen tech" on Google though, so they can't just make claims without evidence.
Any attorneys want to confirm/correct my understanding?
I can't comment on the ins and outs of discovery, but I will point out that "Google" is inaccurate - the plaintiff is Waymo, which is a sibling company to Google.
That's my question. Given that Uber claims they weren't using the technology... how can you tell if they stopped? Just forbid them from using LIDAR altogether?
This is answered in the actual injunction document.
Uber is required to perform a thorough accounting of any design aspects stemming from the trade secrets noted in Waymo's filing. Uber is required to interview all individuals who worked with Levandowski to circumvent Levandowski's usage of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination protections. If Uber can't compel the information the court seeks, it must use its full authority to obtain it. Judge Alsop explicitly says Uber must terminate any uncooperative employee.
A Waymo attorney and an expert get to audit Uber's self-driving technology to identify aspects of the trade secrets annotated in Waymo's filing.
The enforcement is that if Waymo's expert and attorney unearth any lack of compliance by Uber, they can face Contempt of Court charges. Since Waymo is pursuing this case zealously, I expect this to be enough incentive for Uber to follow the court order in good faith.
In the past, Uber has complied with discovery motions even when the results embarrassed the company, e.g. the executive venting: about how he wishes he could dig up dirt to discredit a journalist.
Uber is required to perform a thorough accounting of any design aspects stemming from the trade secrets noted in Waymo's filing. Uber is required to interview all individuals who worked with Levandowski to circumvent Levandowski's usage of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination protections. If Uber can't compel the information the court seeks, it must use its full authority to obtain it. Judge Alsop explicitly says Uber must terminate any uncooperative employee.
A Waymo attorney and an expert get to audit Uber's self-driving technology to identify aspects of the trade secrets annotated in Waymo's filing.
The enforcement is that if Waymo's expert and attorney unearth any lack of compliance by Uber, they can face Contempt of Court charges. Since Waymo is pursuing this case zealously, I expect this to be enough incentive for Uber to follow the court order in good faith.
In the past, Uber has complied with discovery motions even when the results embarrassed the company, e.g. the executive venting: about how he wishes he could dig up dirt to discredit a journalist.
Waymo is allowed to look at the devices and supporting documentation and see if there is any stolen IP.
The judge could have gone that broad and issued a total injunction, but he purposely didn't. I've been involved in situations like this. The end result is likely the status quo. Both parties will fight over it more, of course. But if Uber says they don't have or use the documents, they'll just continue business as usual.
Effectively this means that if they were using it, and they continue using it, they can add contempt of court to the list of potential charges I guess.
Uber is allowed to continue working on and using LIDAR. The article has intentionally mislead you because Uber is every journalist's favorite boogeyman right now.
[deleted]
How come Levandowski isn't sued for stealing data? Doesn't what he did to Google considered stealing? I would have called for police investigation for someone so prominent stealing my company's data.
This was mentioned in the HN discussion[1] about the other order, which denied enforcing arbitration. There are two separate lawsuits, one against Uber (this one), and one against Levandowski. Because of his employment agreement, the Levandowski suit is done through arbitration rather than a court. Uber moved to consolidate the two suits and force the combined suit into arbitration, but the court denied the motion.
Also, the court also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney for a possible criminal investigation, so depending on what they decide Levandowski could come under criminal charges also. (He is already taking the 5th.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14321044
Also, the court also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney for a possible criminal investigation, so depending on what they decide Levandowski could come under criminal charges also. (He is already taking the 5th.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14321044
Thanks, I didn't read that properly. Hopefully truth will come out of criminal investigation.
Check out the forensic expert's testimony for yourself. It's hardly conclusive that he took the files in question. Interpretations of the testimony are very speculative.
Well, the judge requested federal prosecutors to take a look.
Is this enforceable? Or is it more of a "If you get caught using it in the future more legal ramifications?"
Violating a judgment would invite contempt proceedings, which means huge fines for Uber and possible prison for all involved senior executives.
Sure, theoretically they are required to follow this and the consequences for not doing so are dire. In practice, however, is there any way for the judge to know if Uber is complying, or does this essentially rely on the honor system?
Didn't Uber pay like $680,000,000 for this technology ?
Apparently according to uber not at all, to quote the ruling
> Defendants have also presented an “independent development” narrative in which they developed their own LiDAR technology without using any confidential information from Waymo. That narrative, however, studiously omitted any inquiry into Levandowski’s work, essentially erasing him from the history of Uber’s self-driving car development. Put differently, the record shows Uber bought Levandowski’s services for a tremendous amount of money and positioned him at the forefront of its self-driving car efforts but is barren on how Levandowski has been earning that money and title.
(and later)
> Indeed, defendants have already carefully crafted a narrative of their self-driving car efforts that conspicuously and incredibly denies any meaningful contribution by Levandowski - even though Uber, in a deal worth approximately $680 million dollars, hired him to lead those efforts.
> Defendants have also presented an “independent development” narrative in which they developed their own LiDAR technology without using any confidential information from Waymo. That narrative, however, studiously omitted any inquiry into Levandowski’s work, essentially erasing him from the history of Uber’s self-driving car development. Put differently, the record shows Uber bought Levandowski’s services for a tremendous amount of money and positioned him at the forefront of its self-driving car efforts but is barren on how Levandowski has been earning that money and title.
(and later)
> Indeed, defendants have already carefully crafted a narrative of their self-driving car efforts that conspicuously and incredibly denies any meaningful contribution by Levandowski - even though Uber, in a deal worth approximately $680 million dollars, hired him to lead those efforts.
Paying for stolen goods doesn't make them your property.
Uber should start a suit against Levandowski.
Otto was fraud, with Uber's knowledge, right from the beginning. While Levandowski was working at Waymo, he and Kalanick had one of their little nighttime walks where they hashed out the deal: "you take Waymo's stuff, found a throwaway company, and we'll buy it a few months later". Of course, this couldn't be proved in court since there were no records of this deal, but it's absolutely what happened. (EDIT: Note that even Alsup thinks this is what happened, he just didn't think there was enough evidence to take action on it)
Hence, there is no way Uber will sue Levandowski. He'd simply spill the beans and then Uber would be screwed.
Hence, there is no way Uber will sue Levandowski. He'd simply spill the beans and then Uber would be screwed.
> Note that even Alsup thinks this is what happened, he just didn't think there was enough evidence to take action on it
This is only a preliminary injunction. Uber is entitled to the most favorable interpretation of the evidence for this motion. They won't get that later, though.
This is only a preliminary injunction. Uber is entitled to the most favorable interpretation of the evidence for this motion. They won't get that later, though.
Uber should have uncovered this during due diligence. I'm not sure if they can even sue Levandowski at this point.
Waymo's alleging they did* - there's a third party due-diligence report prepared by Stroz that both Uber and Levandowski especially are trying really hard to keep from handing over. Levandowski even filed an emergency appeal as a non-party to the case (which was rejected) to be prevented from just naming who it was who prepared the report.
* (Well, Waymo's alleging that the court should make an adverse inference that they did because of Uber's behavior around the report).
* (Well, Waymo's alleging that the court should make an adverse inference that they did because of Uber's behavior around the report).
How can you although? Show us what is on every hard drive you ever owned? Uber doesnt have access to googles internal security logs.
The court order says that Uber was talking with Levandowski about buying his company _while he was still working at Google_:
> Meanwhile, emails between Uber executives on January 12 and January 13 showed they had prepared a document titled “NewCo Milestones v5” for Levandowski to review in advance of a meeting the following day.
He didn't quit until the 27th. If you're poaching someone highly-placed off of your competitor you either have a plan for how you'll prove that they _didn't_ steal secrets or (like Uber) you get court orders to expose all your files.
> Meanwhile, emails between Uber executives on January 12 and January 13 showed they had prepared a document titled “NewCo Milestones v5” for Levandowski to review in advance of a meeting the following day.
He didn't quit until the 27th. If you're poaching someone highly-placed off of your competitor you either have a plan for how you'll prove that they _didn't_ steal secrets or (like Uber) you get court orders to expose all your files.
In general although, how do you deal with this kind of prove a negative situation?
Hire high level employee X, talking while they are employed with your competitor or not, how do you prove they don't 'copy files' or bring documents with them to their house? Search their house? How do you know they didn't put them in some secret location?
Hire high level employee X, talking while they are employed with your competitor or not, how do you prove they don't 'copy files' or bring documents with them to their house? Search their house? How do you know they didn't put them in some secret location?
Is this industry standard? I'm not high-level so I wouldn't know. Are you saying this because you have first-hand knowledge?
Well, that might incite Levandowski to explain just how much Uber knew and the situation was premeditated in an effort to protect himself. Given Google's assertions, if there is any truth to them I think that might open them up to being prosecuted for fraud.
I think Uber and Levandowski have some sort of agreement that says Uber will defend him in court. In light of this, it would be difficult for Uber to argue they have grounds to sue him.
It didn't pay the owner of the technology $680,000,000; if I pay some guy on the street for your house, it doesn't give me the right to sleep there if he doesn't have the right to dispose of your property, no matter how much I pay.
They paid for the company and the employees. They didn't pay for LiDAR, which is the basis of the suit.
Well, they said they didn't pay for LiDAR. The company had only existed for a few months; it didn't have a big base of proprietary technology that was worth a bundle. So either the employees were worth hundreds of millions, or Uber was really paying for the stolen documents.
if this is all legit, it baffles me that this guy thought he would be able to 'download' anything and take it and not be caught... weird
IME, a lot of engineers, especially high-level ones, don't realize the extent to which IT monitors their actions. They know the technology is there but think it's being used on "other people", and that just because their computers are less locked-down, to allow for installing dev tools, that means they're less-surveilled.
You'd be shocked how many engineers I've had to personally tell not to download pirated media or porn on their work computers.
rotflmao(4)
The title screams bias and misinformation. It presumes Uber took technology from Waymo, which the judge rules against by stating that "Waymo’s patent theories are too weak to support any provisional relief" and "it has become clear that Waymo has both overreached in defining its trade secrets and made moving targets out of its asserted trade secrets to evade defensive arguments".
Contrary, it says that Uber either knew or should have known that he took those 14,000 files and that undoubtedly those files were used by Uber to develop LIDAR. It says that Waymo has shown evidence of trade secret misuse enough to grant provisional relief.
It is not a knock out blow against Uber, but look at the relief granted with regard to more discover. Uber has to do a complete accounting of everyone who talked to Lewandowsky about LIDAR and the contents and dates of those conversations. They have to get every employee under oath saying whether they used any info or knew of any info in those 14,000 files.
In short, Uber didn't get knocked out by this order, but it certainly sets them up for getting knocked out as the Judge clearly is interested in getting to the bottom of this.
If evidence exists that Uber knew of or used information in those 14,000 files ... the Judge and Waymo are determined to find it. I think that is bad for Uber know matter how you look at it.
It is not a knock out blow against Uber, but look at the relief granted with regard to more discover. Uber has to do a complete accounting of everyone who talked to Lewandowsky about LIDAR and the contents and dates of those conversations. They have to get every employee under oath saying whether they used any info or knew of any info in those 14,000 files.
In short, Uber didn't get knocked out by this order, but it certainly sets them up for getting knocked out as the Judge clearly is interested in getting to the bottom of this.
If evidence exists that Uber knew of or used information in those 14,000 files ... the Judge and Waymo are determined to find it. I think that is bad for Uber know matter how you look at it.
I'm interpreting this differently than you are.
It says nothing about trade secret _misuse_ but alsip does discuss trade secret theft, which is an important distinction. So far, there is no evidence that Uber has used any waymo trade secrets in their SDC program, and if there was any evidence the program would have been shut down BUT there is significant evidence that Levandowsky did steal a treasure trove of documents as he was on his way out the door.
What the ruling does show is that Levandowsky is considered to be toxic, and will not be allowed to work at uber on any programs that he may have stolen trade secrets for.
It is entirely possible that Levandowsky downloaded the 14k files for his use, but they never impacted the designs at uber, at least in a legally provable form.
I am not familiar enough with case law in this arena to know the legal intricacies but my initial reaction is that, while uber is not off the hook, the potential damage they may receive as an outcome of this has has been reduced immensely (shut down entire program => remove head exec running program) when compared with the rhetoric before this injunction was released.
It says nothing about trade secret _misuse_ but alsip does discuss trade secret theft, which is an important distinction. So far, there is no evidence that Uber has used any waymo trade secrets in their SDC program, and if there was any evidence the program would have been shut down BUT there is significant evidence that Levandowsky did steal a treasure trove of documents as he was on his way out the door.
What the ruling does show is that Levandowsky is considered to be toxic, and will not be allowed to work at uber on any programs that he may have stolen trade secrets for.
It is entirely possible that Levandowsky downloaded the 14k files for his use, but they never impacted the designs at uber, at least in a legally provable form.
I am not familiar enough with case law in this arena to know the legal intricacies but my initial reaction is that, while uber is not off the hook, the potential damage they may receive as an outcome of this has has been reduced immensely (shut down entire program => remove head exec running program) when compared with the rhetoric before this injunction was released.
In the expedited discovery done so far Uber has claimed privilege for huge amounts of requested documents. If you read the order, the Judge is signaling that this isn't going to be allowed to continue. One of the reasons he turned down the adverse inference is basically that he expects discovery going forward to favor Waymo and the adverse inference question is not necessary to decide now.
The ruling in general gives the definite impression that the Judge is very interested in seeing the evidence one way or another whether stolen tech was used by Uber and claims of privilege and 5th amendment will be greatly hindered going forward.
The ruling in general gives the definite impression that the Judge is very interested in seeing the evidence one way or another whether stolen tech was used by Uber and claims of privilege and 5th amendment will be greatly hindered going forward.
Are you an Uber employee? Curious for full disclosure.
I'm an Alphabet employee but not one working on Waymo-related projects, nor am I a lawyer who feels qualified to comment on this situation. Wish Groklaw was still around to interpret these rulings for us :(.
I'm an Alphabet employee but not one working on Waymo-related projects, nor am I a lawyer who feels qualified to comment on this situation. Wish Groklaw was still around to interpret these rulings for us :(.
>>It presumes Uber took technology from Waymo, which the judge rules against
FTFA:
"Judge William Alsup in San Francisco says in the ruling that Waymo has shown “compelling evidence” that a former star engineer named Anthony Levandowski downloaded confidential files before leaving Waymo. The Judge also says evidence shows that before he left Waymo, Levandowski and Uber planned for Uber to acquire a company formed by Levandowski."
FTFA:
"Judge William Alsup in San Francisco says in the ruling that Waymo has shown “compelling evidence” that a former star engineer named Anthony Levandowski downloaded confidential files before leaving Waymo. The Judge also says evidence shows that before he left Waymo, Levandowski and Uber planned for Uber to acquire a company formed by Levandowski."
That isn't quite the same as "Uber took technology from Waymo", though.
Levandowski took a bunch of stuff from Waymo. There seems to be very little doubt of that. Levandowski, while in possession of those documents, formed Otto. Uber bought Otto. Therefore, Uber bought a company that included a person who stole a bunch of documents from Waymo.
Now: Did Uber get access to the documents? Did Levandowski not show them the documents, but just use the contents to give guidance/instructions/knowledge? Either of those would be "Uber taking the technology".
Or did Levandowski just put those files away on a drive somewhere, and never use them while at Otto or Uber? I don't believe that for a minute, but it's possible (from the evidence so far).
Levandowski took a bunch of stuff from Waymo. There seems to be very little doubt of that. Levandowski, while in possession of those documents, formed Otto. Uber bought Otto. Therefore, Uber bought a company that included a person who stole a bunch of documents from Waymo.
Now: Did Uber get access to the documents? Did Levandowski not show them the documents, but just use the contents to give guidance/instructions/knowledge? Either of those would be "Uber taking the technology".
Or did Levandowski just put those files away on a drive somewhere, and never use them while at Otto or Uber? I don't believe that for a minute, but it's possible (from the evidence so far).
And you can reasonably draw the conclusion that is a plot for stealing technology? It's perfectly reasonable to tell someone that, go make an MVP and we will acquire it.
> It's perfectly reasonable to tell someone that, go make an MVP and we will acquire it.
You have a point in general, but it is some of specifics of this case that raise doubts about whether that is the whole story.
You have a point in general, but it is some of specifics of this case that raise doubts about whether that is the whole story.
[deleted]
As I've pointed out before, the whole LIDAR thing is a side issue. Google's LIDAR is another Velodyne-like spinning thing. Google's patented innovation is to make each scan beam slightly oval, which is marginally useful but not essential. Spinning 3D LIDAR units are research and prototyping tools. The future is either flash LIDAR or MEMS. Even Velodyne is moving beyond the spinning top thing.[1]
Here's a video with some images from Continental's flash LIDAR.[2] That's suitable for production cars. Continental is a big German auto parts company. They make other LIDAR products, vehicle cameras and processors, radars, GPS units, and most of the other parts needed for self-driving. Continental demoed a self-driving car in 2013. They have 1,300 people working on this. Uber makes a lot of noise, but Continental is going to ship product in volume.
Quanergy, a Silicon Valley startup, announced a flash LIDAR last year, but they seem to be having problems getting it out the door. A new startup, TetraView, got series A funding to develop a higher resolution flash LIDAR ("2K", they boast), using standard CMOS technology.[3] That, if it works, will bring the price down further while increasing the resolution, and will have other robotics applications.
So nobody really needs the Waymo LIDAR technology. For testing, you can buy a Velodyne, and for production, the flash LIDAR people are almost ready.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/velodyne-lidar-enters-the... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxy08YX0C8w [3] http://www.tetravue.com/technology/