
Alphabet claims Uber was hiding the self-driving tech that it allegedly copied - flinner
https://www.recode.net/2017/4/21/15390074/alphabet-uber-hiding-self-driving
======
mstank
Can't say I'm shocked to see Uber's dishonesty here. From all the other claims
against them (Lyft and sexual harassment) it seems like this type of behavior
is standard operating procedure.

This culture is set from the top. It's only a matter of time that Travis will
step down. Sooner the better so they can start working on improving integrity
throughout the organization.

In the 90's, Microsoft was skewered for a lot less.

~~~
yawaworht12
Based on what proof. The article provided nothing in the way of evidence, just
Google's claim. They could claim anything. Since when did HN stop exercising
healthy skepticism?

~~~
mstank
Also based on a pattern of behavior. These issues are systemic and have been
going on for years. This is the same company that ignores sexual harassment
claims, illegally tracks and blackmails journalists, deploys highly
questionable anti-competitive tactics at will.

~~~
yawaworht12
I used to work at a very successful tech company that became the Goliath in
its market and saw first hand how the media vilified us and interpreted every
little thing we did through evil-colored glasses. I few issues were legitimate
criticisms but they were textbook cases of situations where Hanlon's Razor
should have been applied. Everyone assumed malice where there there was at
worst poor judgement. Eventually the media cycle reached a fever pitch to
drive clicks and everything was interpreted in the worst way possible to drive
whatever narrative people (just like you) wanted to believe.

Cite me a single shred of evidence to support your claim that they have
blackmailed a single journalist.

Uber and its closest competitor Lyft engaged in pretty much all the same
competitive actions but only Uber is criticized for them. Everyone criticizes
Uber for subsidization tactics to win market share and conveniently ignores
that Lyft does the exact same. My observations with my former employee roughly
aligns with what I've seen with Uber. 20% or so is legitimate criticism (due
to poor judgement) and 80% is hyperbolic and applied to us and our competitors
and applies to Uber and its competitors.

Near as I can tell this is a phenomena that applies to every single unicorn
that has viable competitors. It happened to Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple,
etc. near as I can tell, the only difference that I can tell between how Uber
is being treated and they were treated come down to the zeitgeist when they
came of age. The past 2-3 years has seen a sharp increase in polarization of
the political atmosphere with a lot more social justice folks in journalistic
positions than in years past and Uber is the favorite whipping boy. For
example, Apple has been subject to this as well. Apple was widely criticized
over labor practices of its suppliers in China despite the fact that it had
and continues to have some of the best practices and policing of suppliers in
the industry.

Take the Susan Fowler situation. It's a shame and it never should have
happened, but in the very same week when her blog post of allegations was
published, there was an actual sexual harassment case filed in an actual court
against Tesla, but almost no one heard about that because the media loves
Tesla.

Everyone I've spoken to that has ever worked at a successful unicorn has
related similar stories of unfair criticism, especially when there were viable
competitors whose investors are powerful and can drive a story through the
journalists they've invested in or have strong relationships with. There's a
reason why investors like Marc Andreessen have invested heavily in the career
of well known Silicon Valley journalists and it's not because those
journalists have an exit strategy that will net him a 10x or 100x return.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Cite me a single shred of evidence to support your claim that they have
> blackmailed a single journalist._

Google "uber blackmail journalist". It's an almost 3-year story now. People
seem to have short memory when it comes to Uber, but they've been pulling
shady shit since almost day one. We've been through many of such discussions
on HN since then, they're all searchable through Google and Algolia (the
search bar at the bottom).

I get that media outlets can all band against particular company - I believe
that's actually happened with Susan Fowler case. But Uber has a long history
of frequent misbehaviour; that's not vilifying, that's what this company is.

~~~
yawaworht12
I just did the search you suggested. It turned up results, none of which show
a single example of blackmail. The best I found was a drunk executive
speculatively talking about funding opposition journalism on a journalist who
was allegedly extraordinarily critical of Uber. Ironically, it looks like you
just illustrated one of my points since I'm pretty sure that that journalist
and the journalists who broke that stories are both Marc Andreessen funded.

So again, please show me where they blackmailed a journalist because I failed
to find any evidence for that. What happened in particular situation you just
cited doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for being blackmail.
That said, I want to be charitable here, so I'll assume you're talking about
some other incident around that time that I'm unfamiliar with. Was there some
other instance you're talking about where they blackmailed a journalist as
you've claimed?

~~~
vertex-four
> In particular, Michael is reported to have singled out PandoDaily editor-in-
> chief Sarah Lacy, suggesting that he already knew something about her and
> could have his team of journalists confirm it.

First article. It's basically creating chilling effects against reporting
against Uber. I'm sure every journalist, and every person, has done something
they wouldn't want to wind up in an article of the New York Times - and unless
a company like Uber goes up against them, those things almost always don't.

~~~
yawaworht12
That's editorializing, not blackmail.

Here's an alternate account of that conversation by someone else that was at
the dinner that suggests that it was a completely different conversation than
was portrayed:

[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6198250](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6198250)

I did some more research and it turns out Ben works for Buzzfeed, which
shortly before that conversation got a $50 million investment from A16Z, which
is one of the biggest investors in Lyft. I'm not suggesting Lyft is the one
playing dirty here but given all the money Andreessen has poured into
journalists I wouldn't be surprised. VCs generally operate on the "no
conflict, no interest maxim".

~~~
yawaworht12
Went down the rabbit whole even further and it turns out Andreessen is the
first and largest investor shareholder in PandoMedia/PandoDaily with 8%:

[https://pando.com/about/](https://pando.com/about/)

That's the media company that Emil was talking about at dinner. Does it not
strike you as odd that one of the most vociferous critics of Uber years ago
also has as a primary shareholder, Lyfts's biggest shareholder?

This isn't an excuse of things that have happened at Uber, but I definitely
think these conflicts of interest should be receiving a lot more scrutiny
since you can make any company look bad by just dedicating more resources to
investigating it and painting everything you find in the worst light possible
(like what happens with Apple)

------
burntrelish1273
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 political endorsements.

It would be great if Lyft, Uber and Waymo did ride-sharing and were as
honest/socially-responsible as possible. That would be better competition for
selfish passengers like me. I prefer Lyft these days but may look at Uber
again if they show they a consistent pattern of honorable behavior.

~~~
yawaworht12
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.

------
mannykannot
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.

~~~
rayiner
> 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 little as they can get away with in response to discovery
requests. Here, it sounds like the discovery request was possibly susceptible
to the interpretation that it was only asking for designs that Uber was still
actively pursuing, or at least that's how Uber originally tried to interpret
it and an employee blew up their spit at a deposition. It's hard to tell
without knowing the exact wording of the discovery request.

~~~
nradov
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.

------
OliverJones
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 stuff doesn't work in
the rain. It won't engage. "Can't see well enough" is what it 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.

Patents only last 20 years. It's going to take 30 to convert the transport
network.

~~~
yawaworht12
Like Pittsburgh?

~~~
vermontdevil
Especially Pittsburgh with bridges and hills.

~~~
dllthomas
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.

------
SCAQTony
In the past year have we ever gone a single month without hearing about
malfeasance, exploitation or sexual harassment within that company?

April alone has tabloid month!

Perhaps Uber's CEO should resign so the company can get some breathing room
and reboot their brand.

~~~
sebleon
While the news makes sensationalist headlines and online outrage, sadly it
doesn't seem like consumers care about Uber's behavior.

~~~
sprafa
In most of the world there are no choices. In London there's either Uber or
Addison Lee, but the price is lower on Uber. When everyone is forced to play
for profits plenty of companies will emerge quickly but for now Uber just
burns VC money so they can dominate the market and everyone else stays away
(because no one else has free money to burn).

We'll find out soon enough whether burning VC money for market penetration was
a good idea or just a SV folly.

~~~
yawaworht12
Is Uber the only one burning through VC money? Near as I can tell, all the
companies are subsidizing to win market share while they figure out how to
control costs and get the most bang for their subsidization buck. Can anyone
point me at a single ridesharing company that isn't heavily subsidizing the
fares?

Assuming they are all subsidizing fares (which I'm almost certain is the
case), the question we should be asking ourselves is which ridesharing company
is earning the most incremental revenue per subsidy dollar spent?

~~~
barneygale
As per naked capitalism's critique, pouring money into Uber will never make
fuel, cars or salaries cheaper. There is no magic point where Uber reaches a
certain efficiency of scale and stops needing to subsidise every ride.

This is why I use Uber as much as possible: they're doomed, and every ride
taken in a redistribution of wealth from silicon valley investors to
consumers.

~~~
yawaworht12
Fuel: not Uber's problem. Any solutions/advances benefit all market
participants equally.

Cars: also not Uber's problem. Any solutions/advances benefit all market
participants equally.

Salary: very much Uber's problem. Also Lyft's problem. And Didi's problem. And
a taxi industry problem. Self driving tech will solve this problem in time.

So the first two will improve over time. The third impacts every player in the
market.

Seeing that there is a definite need and this market isn't going to go away,
it seems like Naked Capitalism is focusing on the wrong problem (or is
focusing on the right problem if the problem is how to drive clicks.

The right problem is who in this market that isn't going away is going to be
the best at optimizing for utilization of fixed cost assets (cars), variable
costs (fuel/energy) and gets enough IP in the self driving car space to have a
defensive patent portfolio.

Uber is really the only player that has a strong presence in multiple markets
in addition to human transportation. They have food delivery, courier
services, long-haul transportation. I wouldn't be surprised if they go after
UPS/FedEx and Instacart at some point. The more diversified they are, the
better the utilization they can achieve. To me that suggests that they can
play the subsidization game against everyone else much more competively since
instead of subsidies, they can provide their contractors with more
opportunities to earn when behind the wheel.

To date, I have yet to hear a single argument why Uber is doomed that doesn't
apply equally to every competitor. The only way I can see Uber being doomed is
if the ridesharing market is doomed. That said, I'd love to hear more
arguments about why the entire market might be doomed or why the future might
favor Tesla's approach or why one of the other competitors in the market has a
better shot. I don't see it. Uber near as I can tell is Amazon, Part Deux.

This biggest question on my mind iswhen investors for all these ridesharing
companies tire of this war of attrition and no longer want to subsidize the
purchase of market share. When that happens, Uber won't be the only company
that needs to raise prices by stopping subsidization.

Again, I would love to hear more arguments that aren't simply driven by
dislike for Uber by some astroturfing comment army.

------
nojvek
I see Uber as our generation's Groupon. Wildly overvalued slowly heading to a
cliff.

~~~
yeukhon
They do have revenue, but not profit, lost $3B last year despite seeing growth
in revenue . The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better
than Groupon. Car service is more direct. Groupon isn't a bad idea either, but
the experience isn't as direct and as Uber. You see, emailing me / texting me
offers is great, but I don't have time to scroll down and read the same kind
of email everyday. If instead at checkout coupon/promote code is added that
would have been great. I have Target, Walgreen apps on my phone. When I visit
the store, I clip the coupon onto my account and then checkout. This still
requires me to search on the app, but at least it's at my fingertip. It would
be better off if I get the promotion regardless. The use of Uber is also in
the user's hand, but spontaneous.

Anyway, I think Uber will stay, but I suspect Uber may have to scale back its
global expansion. Perhaps I am short-sighted. It would be interesting to see
the revenue and spending geographically.

~~~
kartan
> The business goal (the product itself) is 10000x times better than Groupon.

To illegally set up a non-compliant taxi service that doesn't pay taxes, that
doesn't pay minimum wage to its employees, that has been banned already in
several countries, that ignores human safety introducing illegally self-
driving cars, it is not a very good business model.

~~~
Applejinx
Oh yes it is… to the extent that you get away with it, without consequences
(in that light, getting banned is bad IF you can't also break that law and get
away with it).

It's much like arbitrage, making money or gaining control of a market by
exploiting weakness on the grandest scale possible. IF there are consequences
for the behavior, then you've just illustrated one way to fail, perhaps on the
same grand scale (see: Enron). If there are no consequences you're just doing
another type of arbitrage and rather than being a poor business model you're
an unmatchably superior business model that others must emulate or die.

Jury's out on whether Uber is the former or the latter. Until that's clear,
the CEO will not resign or back off in the slightest, because they can't: it's
a strategy of never backing down or admitting weakness in any sense, with the
tone set from the top. If they can get powerful enough friends and never face
consequences, they win. If they're more powerful than the law, they are the
law.

We do see a tendency in modern trade agreements to hold entire countries
responsible for injuring the profitability of large companies. In that light,
Uber bans could be made illegal, under certain conditions, much like banning
tobacco advertising can be made illegal.

------
electriclove
"In the latest filing, Alphabet says Uber hid a lidar device Levandowski
designed based on these files. The company says Uber obfuscated the existence
of a piece of lidar technology at an April 12 hearing.

Uber denies this and says it eventually produced the device in question. "

------
revelation
Is the docket for this available somewhere? I hate reports that won't link (or
provide) the original source.

~~~
kyrra
I just use this search[0]. I believe this is the latest filing[1]. Full docket
is here[2]. Note that many of the filings arent mirrored publicly, so you
would need to buy them through PACER.

[0]
[https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Waymo](https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Waymo)

[1] [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3676397-Waymo-
Motion...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3676397-Waymo-Motion-to-
File-Under-Seal-4-21-2017.html#document/p1)

[2] [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-
ube...](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-uber-
technologies-
inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc)

------
bichiliad
I'm a bit confused — has anything developed since the lawsuit was filed in
late February[0]?

[0]:
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474305-1-Main.html](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474305-1-Main.html)

~~~
bestnameever
Yes, you're actually commenting on a thread which is discussing the latest
updates.

From the article: "In the latest filing, Alphabet says Uber hid a lidar device
Levandowski designed based on these files. The company says Uber obfuscated
the existence of a piece of lidar technology at an April 12 hearing."

[https://www.recode.net/2017/4/21/15390074/alphabet-uber-
hidi...](https://www.recode.net/2017/4/21/15390074/alphabet-uber-hiding-self-
driving)

~~~
bichiliad
Sorry — that's what I get for skimming.

------
nullc
Is it the secret of embedding lidar at the trailer hitch in your cars so that
it's sure to get smashed if someone rear ends you?

