
Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology - sonnyblarney
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/10/lone-engineer-spanks-waymo-in-lidar-patent-battle/
======
discjockeydom
I have actually reviewed this man's supposedly vigilante's submission to the
USPTO and it is clear that this story is not what it seems. The document is a
highly professional 95+ page document of complex legal argumentation that only
a law firm with a small team of lawyers with a lot of prior experience doing
this could have put together. It contains lots of lawyer speak and
contemporary argumentation that a lay person would simple not have knowledge
of. As much as people are keen to believe the vigilante narrative, there is
zero chance that is what happened here. Instead, he was used as a 'strawman'
by a company with much deeper pockets to attack Waymo's key patent. I estimate
that this actually cost around $100k to prepare and file.

~~~
calcifer
It is really funny that a conspiracy theory posted by an anonymous person with
no backing evidence whatsoever is sitting at the top of this thread.

~~~
coldtea
It's as if people can still think for themselves and make arguments from the
available information (even if they prove to be wrong), instead of expecting
the final story to be handed down to them...

The reference to the "95+ page document of complex legal argumentation"?
That's evidence in support of the claim in the comment. Parent didn't make up
that it's a complex lengthy legal document themselves.

Sure, the theory that he was a strawman might or might not pan out. But that
this is no simple "engineer vigilante" is evident. Perhaps it's a very
organized vigilante with big resources (and the money mentioned also point to
that). But such a move is not above suspicion of some other corporate entity
being involved. Should anybody thinking so just keep it to themselves? Or are
people that might agree at fault if they vote such a comment up?

~~~
simias
The original poster doesn't provide any substantive evidence of what they're
claiming (since then they've posted a link to the document without further
discussion). They have an account with very little activity so we don't really
know who they are or how knowledgeable (and how biased) they are on these
issues. I think some skepticism is very much warranted and I don't understand
why their comment sits at the top of the thread. They're not making "arguments
from the available information", they're just making a statement without
providing evidence.

>But that this is no simple "engineer vigilante" is evident

It is not to me. It's plausible that he might not be but I haven't seen a
conclusive demonstration either and I'd sooner trust Ars over "some anonymous
poster on HN who says it's not true".

I tried reading the PDF provided and I found it very obtuse and verbose, but
then again so are patent applications as far as I'm concerned. I'm genuinely
incapable of judging the level of skill and dedication required to create
something like that. If you are I'd very much like to hear about it instead of
throwing vague accusations. Is is that implausible that a skilled engineer
used to dealing with patents could come up with something like that on their
own or with only minor outside help?

------
twtw
Props to this guy.

I just took a look at the patent (highly recommended), and it's fairly
ridiculous. It's a 101 design to control a diode with a transistor.

~~~
simias
It does look that way but then if that's the case why didn't anybody at Uber
point that out during the lawsuit? From the article:

>The patent describes how a laser diode can be configured to emit pulses of
laser light using a circuit that includes an inductor and a gallium nitride
transistor. That chance discovery helped spark a lawsuit in which Waymo
accused Uber of patent infringement and of using lidar secrets supposedly
stolen by engineer Anthony Levandowski.

>In August 2017, Uber agreed to redesign its Fuji lidar not to infringe the
936 patent.

If "some guy" with $6000 lying around could overturn most of the patent why
couldn't Uber? That's the part that baffles me.

~~~
ben_w
Real life example from someone I know:

They worked at a company which was only allowed to use certain DRM stuff if
they used patent-protected encryption within the hardware. Therefore he
invented some and worked with the company lawyer to get a patent.

The patent lawyers’ job includes making the patent as general as possible. The
lawyer did not understand the technology, and while broadening the patent
claim they accidentally changed the patent into something which already
existed - a binary adder, if I remember, certainly something that simple
although the details are unimportant. None of this was relevant to my
acquaintance nor their employer as the mere fact that they had a patent
entitled them to use the DRM.

Even lawyers are vulnerable to the game of telephone. Despite their reputation
as vampires, they are very human.

~~~
thaumasiotes
This is a good answer to the question "why did Waymo have a patent that could
be invalidated by one guy with $6000?"

But it's a terrible answer to the question "if one guy with $6000 could get
this patent invalidated, why couldn't Uber?"

~~~
1_player
Probably because none of the lawyers on Uber's side had the credentials to
stop and ask themselves "hey, is this even patentable?!"

Nobody consulted any engineer. Just lawyers fighting each other, and the side
with the biggest pockets won.

~~~
spydum
Absolutely believable - I’ve been amazed at some of the foolishness of general
councils at LARGE corps. They may know law, but they can suck at getting
details right about engineering problems. Heck even when it comes to law,
can’t tell you how many times I have heard “we will need to consult outside
council”..

~~~
1_player
See, I'm being absolutely cynical and tongue-in-cheek here, but my
understanding about the modern law is that lawyers aren't fighting for the
"truth" or "common good" nor they are in the "righting wrongs" business.

Their only job is doing whatever the client wants done. A _good lawyer_ wins a
case even when it's total bollocks. The fact that it is bollocks is not a
concern at any level.

[https://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E?t=5m56s](https://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E?t=5m56s)

~~~
rcxdude
This is how adversarial justice systems are supposed to operate. The idea
being that you get lawyers advocating in the best possible way for either
side, so the argument is 'fair'. This is in comparison to an inquisitorial
system, where one party is charged with investigating the case and exposing
the 'truth'. This is more prone to bias and ability on that one party but it
does generally mean that the level of resources each side has matters less.

~~~
sorokod
Its a modern version of trial by combat
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat)).
As always ,those who can buy a better combatant - win.

------
jonathanstrange
If the US patent office did their job, then there would be no need for
"vigilante" engineers.

Maybe the reporting of the patent situation is a bit biased but from what I've
heard over the years it appears to me that every second patent should be
invalid and has prior art.

~~~
ChrisSD
That would require someone to pay the US patent office to do their jobs.

I believe paying for government services is considered a contentious issue in
the USA.

~~~
drhodes
> A quick review of the budget and supporting Commerce Department Appendix
> suggests the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has received
> everything it requested ($3,586,193,000), and will not suffer the indignity
> of fee diversion...

[https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/23/uspto-3-6-billion-
pres...](https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/23/uspto-3-6-billion-presidents-
fy-2018-budget-avoids-fee-diversion/id=83633/)

more about the fee diversion

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trade...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office#Fee_diversion)

The USPTO isn't mentioned in the congressional budget resolutions

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget#Congressional_budget_resolution)

> Congress Approves $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill, Averting a Shutdown

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/house-
passes-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/house-passes-
spending-bill.html)

~~~
ChrisLomont
USPTO processed >600K patent applications in 2015 [1]. I assume more recent
years are similar. Looking over their fee schedule they probably bring in
around ~$1-2K per patent application. I'll be generous at $2K.

So they have ~3.5B + 1.2B in revenue. This allocates on avg <$8K to evaluate a
patent. Patent examiners likely cost ~150K/yr to employ (wages, benefits,
overhead). This is $300/hr.

So an examiner has on avg ~25 hours to evaluate a possibly lengthy, complex,
specialized document that often took a team many months to prepare.

That's not very much time to do the job people want them to do. The limiting
factor is money.

[1]
[https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.h...](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm)

~~~
jakamau
Wouldn't $150K/year in total compensation be $75/hour - thus changing it to ~
100 hours to review the document?

I think you still make a valid point. The deluge of patent applications and
the relatively specialized knowledge base of certain patents makes it a
challenge.

If anything $150,000/examiner seems a bit low if we are trying to tie in
building overhead, administration, and benefits to a per person figure.

~~~
ChrisLomont
>Wouldn't $150K/year in total compensation be $75/hour

Oops - correct :)

------
steve_adams_86
That's stunning that (evidently) no one noticed the patents were for a
physically impossible design. Was the legal battle even about the designs or
more so for posturing?

~~~
erpellan
Patents are broken. I give you: The Stick.

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US6360693](https://patents.google.com/patent/US6360693)

HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2102388](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2102388)

Also: we all owe license fees for using gravity.

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US6368227B1/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US6368227B1/en)

~~~
Schwolop
I see yours and raise you this:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070244837](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070244837)

"System and method for extracting value from a portfolio of assets" \- a.k.a.
The process of being a patent troll is patented.

~~~
lisper
As an experiment I once applied for and received a patent on a faster-than-
light communications system:

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US7126691B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7126691B2/en)

The patent system is FUBAR.

~~~
saalweachter
And if anyone builds an FTL communication system based on your design, your
rights will be protected.

~~~
lisper
Yeah, but only for the next four years so they better hurry it up.

------
drakenot
I'm impressed that the random engineer was willing to put up $6k of his own
money to challenge the patent, despite not benefiting from the decision in any
way.

~~~
CloudYeller
"Random engineer", or guy who sold a company for $130M after a patent-induced
nightmare? [https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-
lawsuit...](https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit-
patent/)

~~~
isatty
Doesn’t matter - he saw something anyone with EE101 should’ve spotted from the
rewrite, stuck with his guns for no personal gain and won.

I would love to have that much attention to detail (or even in the interest in
reading through the patent).

~~~
writepub
It matters. Of all possible patents to invalidate, why this one?

Uber - one of the world's most valuable private companies, doesn't need help
with patent law.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Possible explanation: because this guy doesn't spend his day looking for
patents to challenge; he read about _that particular one_ on the news due to
Waymo vs Uber case, and decided to take a look at it, only to notice it's
bullshit.

That's the official story, but it also sounds pretty plausible.

------
sir-alien
Although some engineers may disagree, this is one of the reasons I believe
engineering should NOT be a protected industry/profession. Fine if the title
was but not the action of doing it.

I read a story about someone showing flaws in a USA traffic light system and
he was subsequently fined for "illegal engineering" which is the most idiotic
thing ever.

Going on current USA progression it won't be long before you get 10 years
behind bars for "illegal engineering" in some states.

Wasn't even that long ago.
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/29/engineer_fined_for_...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/29/engineer_fined_for_talking_about_math/)

~~~
moftz
That case is a little out there, I've never met an non-pe engineer that has
ever gotten in trouble for doing engineering. I think PE certifications are
fine in cases where there is one guy having the final say on a massive project
that could kill someone if it fails. If my calculator app crashes, no one is
going to be crushed to death. I think software and electrical engineering is a
little bit different compared to a mechanical or civil engineer that is
designing buildings and superstructures. For one, software and hardware is
something you can constantly test and redesign for relatively little cost. You
can come out with a product that just works and works well. Even if you are
producing software and hardware that goes into lifesaving equipment, you can
still perform tests on the final product to make sure it conforms. Once you
build that bridge, its up there. You can't refactor it and come out with a new
version if a strut fails. And because your design is in the public, the
county/state/country is going to make sure you do it right. Too many people
have been hurt by shoddy buildings in the lifetime of humanity to ignore
modern safety code. There should be no reason why having a licensed
professional engineer is a bad thing for anyone except those not good enough
to beat the exam or those too cheap to hire one.

I really don't see anything to suggests that "illegal engineering" is a trend.
I don't think that discussing engineering topics should be illegal but you
should be fined for lying about being a PE just as you would by saying you are
a medical doctor when you really aren't.

------
ezoe
So, the last year, Waymo claimed that Uber infringe this patent and Uber
claimed they redesign it so it didn't infringe the patent now.

And then, the same patent is concluded to be "impossible" and "magic".

What kind of nonsense is this? How do you use or redesign to avoid using the
impossible magic tech?

~~~
TeMPOraL
The way I understand the story from this article, the patent wasn't magic, it
was just obvious and plenty of prior art existed. When this guy challenged
that patent, Waymo started rewriting it, and this is when the "impossible
magic tech" was introduced.

~~~
ezoe
Yes. I read the article and it looks like so.

------
codeCatalyst
It's sad that Google has become part of the problem rather than the solution.

So much for "Do no Evil".

~~~
writepub
On this one, they may have some ground. A former engineer allegedly walked out
with designs, and pleaded the fifth amendment when asked to testify in court.

------
kabes
Makes me wonder how many patents are unrightfully granted.

~~~
jjeaff
I'd guess about 95% of them give or take a few percentage points.

------
still_grokking
> In March, an examiner noted that a re-drawn diagram of Waymo's lidar firing
> circuit showed current passing along a wire between the circuit and the
> ground in two directions—something generally deemed impossible.

Oh! Someone took inspiration in real magic[1].

[1] [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/magic-
story.html](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/magic-story.html)

------
Kiro
> The USPTO found that some claims replicated technology described in an
> earlier patent from lidar vendor Velodyne, while another claim was simply
> "impossible" and "magic."

I don't see the word "magic" anywhere in the Final Rejection document. What
did they say exactly?

------
iamleppert
Just goes to show that in top-down organizations, it doesn't matter if they
have tons of employees and engineers when the work output of all of them is
just a sum and intrinsically limited by their masters at the top.

------
hiccuphippo
How can I but this man a beer?

------
deepnotderp
Interesting that Google/Waymo is one of the companies that boasts about not
filing for bs patent portfolios and yet...

:(

~~~
ezoe
All patents are BS.

~~~
deepnotderp
Not _all_ to be honest, there are keystone patents (e.g. patent for integrated
circuit) that were genuinely novel and breakthrough, but somewhere along the
way the system seems to have become large dysfunctional.

------
rkagerer
Well done

------
dang
Url changed from [https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/waymo-uber-lidar-
patent-e...](https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/waymo-uber-lidar-patent-
engineer/), which points to this.

~~~
Jerry2
This URL referenced by CloudYeller is a much better story than the Ars one:
[https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-
lawsuit...](https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit-
patent/)

~~~
dang
That was discussed in 2017 here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15875685](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15875685).
The new articles do have new information, so we'll leave this one up.

------
vikingcaffiene
> He then spent $6,000 of his own money

Who on earth has that kind of scratch just lying around to spend on something
like this? I mean good for him for doing it but wow!!

~~~
C4stor
If I read correctly correlated informations, the guy sold a company for 130
million dollars in the early 2000s (a story which also provided him with much
needed experience in patents laws). If his only hobby in the meantime has been
challenging patents, he probably can afford it !

~~~
unreal37
We don't know how much of that he got to keep. The company raised $50 Million
from investors (who need to get repaid), and there were other co-founders
involved.

He said $6000 was "not a drop in the bucket" for him, so I guess he didn't get
much of that.

