Uber responds to Waymo: We don't even use that tech you say we stole Uber has filed its response to Waymo's trade secret suit, arguing it does not even use the self-driving car technology described in the complaint. In a filing [PDF] to the California Northern US District Court made Friday, the dial-a-ride app builder says the LiDAR sensor technology at the heart of the suit is not employed in …
Obviously he is innocent until convicted by a jury of his peers but let's be honest his behavior has been what a lot of people might consider a tad suspicious.
Not that I'm sure he has a complete explanation for these (apparently) suspicious actions.
Hmm. Yes I like that. Very plausible. And he's taken the 5th because some of them are quite nasty (but legal). I'm sure his lawyers can supply a list of suitably distasteful topics.
Sadly I suspect that this being Google they may have a little more intelligence on the files contents than just the number and size.
It starts to make sense when you lay out the timeline, which is as follows:
t=0: Levandowski works for Google. He does their self-driving car stuff. He downloads 14 THOUSAND files from Google. I somehow doubt these are cat videos, and the fact that Google are suing suggests they have evidence that it was more meaningful. A git repo maybe?
t = 30 days. Levandowski quits and starts his own self-driving car company. I somehow doubt that this was a decision made between t=0 and t=30
t = few months. Uber buys Levandowski's company (Otto).
I can well see why Mr L has taken the fifth. He's looking remarkably like he stole IPR from Google, got Uber to unknowingly pay for it via the acquisition of Otto, and now must have be enjoying some serious lawyerly arm-twisting from his employer, who stand to lose a heckuva lot of Google's claims against him are proven.
I hate how it's fashionable to hate Uber, simply because they stole the jobs of lazy taxi drivers with a better, customer friendly business model.
However this does seem like Uber's defence here is that they didn't steal the tech, they just employed (and continue to employ) the guy that did steal Google's tech... Not much a defence really....
Uber has certainly woke traditional taxi services up, but perhaps only Black Cab drivers were complacent -- mini-cab drivers have always been at the edge: poorly paid, no security, etc. But Uber exploits its drivers, puts its passengers at risk (insurance, no proper vetting of drivers etc) and is shown to be an all-around cum-bag.
> I hate how it's fashionable to hate Uber, simply because they stole the jobs of lazy taxi drivers with a better, customer friendly business model.
May it be perhaps that their questionable ethics and business practices, immature corporate officers, and poor decision making, are also a factor?
a. Are not American,
b. do not tend to watch Hollywoodesque legal dramas, and
c. cannot be arsed to look up "fifth amendment rights";
could you please clarify what that's supposed to be?
From the context, I gather it's similar to Article 10 of the Andorran Constitution, but that's just a guess. Please keep in mind you are writing for an international audience.
> You had our sympathy until point c.
For who else do you speak?
Not my case, but not everyone is free to browse at will. For example people using work or public connections may be reticent to do searches where they are uncertain about what sort of results may pop up.
"Article 10 lays out a citizen's rights before the courts, specifically, the right to obtain a decision from the court that is firmly based in law, the right to have a lawyer in court, and even the right to have free legal representation in cases where this is necessary.", according to Wikipedia, so fairly similar to Article 35 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR. OK?
I'll bite.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
