
Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber is going to trial, judge rules - golfer
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/11/waymos-lawsuit-against-uber-is-going-to-trial-judge-rules/
======
aresant
This is a huge precursor to the real blow:

"The decision hints that Alsup’s pending decision on a preliminary injunction
might not be favorable to Uber. . . it could effectively halt Uber’s self
driving development plans entirely while the trial plays out."

In context of Travis' view "What would happen if we weren't a part of that
future? If we weren't part of the autonomy thing? Then the future passes us by
basically, in a very expeditious and efficient way," he said." (1)

(1)
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/travis-...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/travis-
kalanick-interview-on-self-driving-cars-future-driver-jobs-2016-8)

~~~
devrandomguy
What happens if Uber just pleads guilty, in order to get back to work ASAP?
They lose important patents. And then, the victor is obligated by patent law
to license patents at a reasonable price, by some unknown definition of
reasonable?

It looks to me like Uber could take another PR hit, burn a $billion or more on
the fallout, raise more billions, and keep on going. Have ethically motivated
boycotts ever worked out, historically?

~~~
CaptainZapp

      Have ethically motivated boycotts ever worked out, historically?
    

Yes, but very rarely. For example:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott)

~~~
diN0bot
also look up the 1965 boycott of california grapes (and in general the
worker's strike and organizing efforts by cesar chavez and dolores huerta).

organizing works!

for anyone interested in more modern day wins, check out "when we fight we
win" by greg jobin-leeds and agiarte.

~~~
chimeracoder
> also look up the 1965 boycott of california grapes (and in general the
> worker's strike and organizing efforts by cesar chavez and dolores huerta).

On the other hand, not all of Chavez's boycotts were successful. That includes
his final effort, a hunger strike which ultimately killed him (aside from his
own death, it was not a particularly successful boycott otherwise either).

------
eridius
Buried at the end of the article:

> _Update: Judge Alsup has also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney for a
> possible criminal investigation._

([https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/11/waymos-claims-of-trade-
sec...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/11/waymos-claims-of-trade-secret-theft-
could-result-in-criminal-case/))

~~~
whatgoodisaroad
Also from that article:

 _...as Uber has argued that it can’t release documents related to its
acquisition of Otto without violating its employee’s 5th Amendment rights._

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but that's not at all how I thought the 5th
Amendment works.

~~~
Animats
You're missing the context:

Judge Alsup: "Even though he is not a defendant here, moreover, Levandowski’s
assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege has obstructed and continues to
obstruct both discovery and defendants’ ability to construct a complete
narrative as to the fate of Waymo’s purloined files. As a practical matter, it
is hard to imagine how consolidating proceedings as to Levandowski and
defendants, whether here or in arbitration, could alleviate these
difficulties."

The judge raises this to show that Levandowski's interests and Uber's
interests are not aligned. Thus, consolidating Waymo vs. Levandowski (which
doesn't exist) with Waymo vs. Uber is not an option. Thus, Uber can't claim
that Levandowski's arbitration contract with Waymo covers Uber's problems.
Therefore, Waymo can insist their case against Uber go to trial.

~~~
Pyxl101
I think his point is: isn't that a bogus thing for Uber to claim? That it
can't release documents because of _someone else 's_ fifth amendment
privilege?

It's not like Uber is married to Levandowski and has spousal privilege against
testifying against him (although Uber sure is acting like they're married!).
Can't they simply release the documents because they _choose to_?

I don't see how Uber choosing to release documents that they have access to
(which is not even testifying, by the way - it's just complying with
discovery) can possibly violate _someone else 's_ fifth amendment rights
against _self-incrimination_. Perhaps a lawyer could speculate on whether a
claim like this can have any merit.

~~~
mdasen
IANAL, but it does seem like a claim that won't hold up in court.

I thought I remembered one item that had Judge Alsup noting that Uber could
require Levandowski to testify as a condition of employment. If Levandowski
refuses to testify, it is then up to Uber to fire him. Uber doesn't get a 5th
amendment protection. If one of Uber's employees refuses to comply in a civil
suit against Uber, Uber then has the choice of not complying with the court or
firing the employee and telling the court that it no longer controls the
employee. The employee likewise has the option to testify or be terminated.

Ultimately, Uber would prefer to keep the documents secret. As a legal
strategy, it makes sense to try anything that might keep the documents secret.
If your back is against the wall, you push on any avenue that might get a
judge to decide that you don't need to show something damaging - even if it's
a long shot.

There is something unnerving about being required to incriminate yourself OR
go bankrupt. Let's say that Google had sued Levandowski rather than Uber and
Levandowski had to either 1) produce the documents that would incriminate him
or 2) let Google win a billion dollar lawsuit against him without contesting
it. At that point, is there really a meaningful 5th amendment protection if an
opponent can just sue you in court and win either by forcing you to waive it
or by default?

~~~
mbreese
_At that point, is there really a meaningful 5th amendment protection if an
opponent can just sue you in court and win either by forcing you to waive it
or by default?_

But the 5th amendment isn't meant to protect a person in a civil case. It's
all about what the government can do in a criminal case. So in your example,
there aren't just two options (incriminate yourself OR go bankrupt). There is
the potential for a third option: go to prison. Most would say that avoiding
the third option is the main goal here. So if you go bankrupt during a civil
case because you don't want to self-incriminate, then that's the cost for
asserting your 5th amendment rights. The 5th amendment isn't about your
protecting assets.

------
kyrra
Source filings provided by Forbes:

Criminal Referral: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3719176-Alsup-
Levand...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3719176-Alsup-Levandowski-
Criminal-Referral.html)

Arbitration Denial: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3719100-Alsup-
Denies...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3719100-Alsup-Denies-
Arbitration-for-Levandowski.html)

------
p49k
"It is unfortunate that Waymo will be permitted to avoid abiding by the
arbitration promise it requires its employees to make."

The idea of forcing people into arbitration has crept into every agreement and
contract that Americans enter, and it's out of control. Congress needs to pass
a law forbidding contracts from forcing individuals into arbitration.

~~~
macspoofing
>Congress needs to pass a law forbidding contracts from forcing individuals
into arbitration.

Hold on there. Let's not dismiss it out of hand - bypassing the court system
and getting things resolved quickly has benefits. And I suspect the
arbitration system is itself a response to some judicial excesses and the
insane American lawsuit-happy culture.

I'm not saying there aren't problems, and the judicial system should be there,
but it's not bad if people solve their own problems without government
involvement.

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Arbitration must remain voluntary, as your right to a proper court must not be
violated.

~~~
macspoofing
Again, I'm not sure about that. Speaking in generalities, why can't two
parties enter into binding arbitration? For example, divorce arbitration can
be significantly cheaper than going through the court system but it only works
if it's binding otherwise one unsatisfied party can simply ignore the ruling.

------
sriram_sun
I remember reading on HN that at least one CMU researcher got paid 3 times
their annual salary as a _sign on bonus_ to join the self driving car team.
I'm wondering how removed the Pittsburgh team was from Otto.

~~~
arcticfox
I'm also curious how much of that bonus was stock, and what happens to Uber's
stock if Google creams them on this

~~~
memmcgee
Or even worse... options. You're tied to Uber with golden handcuffs and no one
wants to touch you now that you've been involved in this.

------
cheeze
This is a pretty fascinating scenario. Between this and everything else that
Uber is going through at the moment, it seems that they are going to have a
very rough year.

Here's to hoping that more people start using competitors so that it's easier
for me to find a Lyft as quickly as I can find an uber.

~~~
j-walker
It's hard for any competitors to compete with Uber subsidizing each ride with
VC money.

------
steveb0x
Man I hate that this is the end for Uber. I've recently been trialing Lyft
and, at least in my area, it always takes longer and is more expensive.

But...if Uber truly is a bunch of scumbags, they deserve to burn.

~~~
j-walker
It's easy to be cheap when you subsidize each ride with VC money.

~~~
hyperbovine
This seems like the correct answer, otoh VC money is still not MY money.

~~~
sharkweek
Not that VC mandates are normally more than a few %s of most LP's allocations,
it's still _someones_ money; pensions, insurance, etc. all take a hit if VC
funds fail.

------
meddlepal
Uber should probably be shitting it's pants right about now. Google would have
to really bungle this to not get a jury to agree Uber has been acting very
shady.

~~~
sjg007
I don't think a normal jury will understand the details but being that it's in
the bay area maybe they will!

~~~
chris11
I think this is much simpler than Oracle v Google concerning Java APIs.
Levandowski stole thousands of documents from Google, started a competitor
using those documents, then sold his startup to Uber. And the timeline makes
it look like Uber was involved from the beginning.

------
SpartanMindset
Always interesting to see two companies with an unlimited lawyer fund go at it
in court.

~~~
goatherders
If you think the legal funds of these two companies are remotely equal...

~~~
stirlo
You can get an awful lot of lawyers with the $11 billion Uber has raised. When
you're talking multi billion dollar companies facing off you can bet they each
have the 2 most expensive lawfirms in the country representing them.

~~~
memmcgee
Uber is still losing money though and fast. Their entire competitive advantage
is that they have a shit ton of VC funding to subsidize rides with. They've
been able to survive this long because they've always been able to raise more
money on the promise that they might not lose money someday, presumably when
they have self-driving cars. Now that the lawsuit has put their future in
question they're going to have a lot more trouble getting another round of
funding.

------
easilyBored
I have a feeling that as soon as the case against Uber is done, Google is
going to go after Lewandowski...try to teach him a lesson and send a message
to other Googlers thinking about doing the same.

For strategic reasons they might have chosen to go after Uber first

~~~
Gibbon1
> Google is going to go after Lewandowski

Um... Lewandowski is going to jail.

~~~
easilyBored
That's Part A. Part B is going after his money. I'd go to jail for hundreds of
millions, which he has /had.

~~~
owly
Clearly you've never been in jail.

~~~
easilyBored
Jail for hundreds of millions of dollars..if I got to keep it? I'd do it.
Nope, never been to jail and I know it's dangerous, but then no doubt it's
navigable, with that type of crime and money.

Not if I already had $120 mil like he had, of course.

------
siegel
After reading Judge Alsup's opinion, I'd be very concerned if I were Uber.
Certainly not sympathetic to Uber's arguments.

That being said, I was a bit surprised by his decision. I was one of the
attorneys for the prevailing defendant in the Torbit v. Datanyze case that
Judge Alsup heavily cites (but disagrees with). Judge Alsup distinguishes that
case, in part, on the basis that California state law does not support its
holding. But the California Court of Appeals just expressly adopted the
holding in Torbit in a case a few weeks ago.

------
beedogs
Fantastic news. The sooner Uber is no longer a company, the better. Possible
criminal charges are the icing on the cake.

------
woodandsteel
Uber is claiming that Waymo has to enter arbitration because Lewandowski had
an arbitration agreement with them when he worked there.

Imagine if that was legally correct. Suppose a fellow worked at 5 companies in
the course of 10 years, and with each company his contract included an
arbitration clause and other interesting items.

Then company #5 would have to honor everything relevant in the previous 4
contracts. What a mess that would be. Alsup was right to reject Uber's claim.

------
icinnamon
The articles keep referring to Waymo at "Waymo LLC". Almost every venture I've
seen has been a corporation, not LLC... anything interesting as to why it's a
LLC?

~~~
linkregister
Limited Liability Corporation just has to do with the number and composition
of shareholders. Most likely, Waymo has one shareholder: Alphabet, Inc.

This is common among subsidiaries of large companies. If you look at the
contracts you sign with your mobile phone provider or rental car agency,
you'll probably see that you're contracting with a local subsidiary LLC.

~~~
uiri
Limited Liability _Company_. An LLC is not a corporation although it may
choose to be taxed as one. Chances are Waymo, as a wholly owned subsidiary is
a single member LLC and a disregarded entity for tax purposes.

~~~
linkregister
Thanks for the correction!

------
omarchowdhury
What % would Uber's stock drop today if it were a public company?

~~~
pscsbs
On the secondary market shares have only dropped 15-20% total since all these
Uber scandals started. That still values Uber at $50-55 billion.

~~~
arcticfox
Seriously? That's pretty shocking to me. I wonder if the secondary market was
already pricing in some of the information with insider knowledge. Or another
theory, in the null-scandal world, maybe Uber would have been up 50% in the
same time period based on other information.

~~~
Analemma_
I mean, even before this wave of scandals started, everyone already knew that
Uber and Kalanick were sleazy as hell, so I suppose if you assume efficient
markets it isn't that surprising that they priced it in already.

------
cryptos
What companies will profit when Uber fails?

~~~
y0ss
Every other company that pitched "We're Uber for X" and got turned down by VCs
saying "You won't be able to compete with Uber".

~~~
enraged_camel
This doesn't make sense. Companies that pitch they are "Uber for X" aren't
competing with Uber. They are using Uber's business model in other markets.

------
Abtin88
hypothetically speaking what's gonna happen if Uber opensource their lidar
technology now?

~~~
wernsey
Probably more lawsuits. Redistribution of stolen goods and so on.

I won't speculate on what the outcome of such a lawsuit might be, though.

------
ameen
I don't think Uber will cease to exist as is. I'd like to think it's too big
to fail. But Alphabet is no small Corp. They can absolutely crush Uber if they
want to.

Would be a shame if this is the end of the road for Uber. For all of their
scandals, they've been really bullish on innovation and pushed the envelope on
moving the Industry forward. I hope only the guilty are charged instead of
Uber as a company having to suffer due to the wrongdoing of a few individuals.

~~~
obmelvin
Why should uber be too big to fail?

Why should the whole company not suffer if their top management is engaged in
terrible practices?

~~~
ameen
Well, I don't think the part of the company working on the current Uber (ride
hailing service) should be affected as they literally have nothing to do with
the self-driving team or the managerial decisions made in regards to that.

Uber has definitely provided quite a lot of people with a source of income and
a cheaper/better alternative for those communting without their own vehicles.

Public transportation is still shitty in many cities across the US. We can't
neglect the positive impact Uber has had on the market. It was a game changer
which led to it being funded as much as it has been.

~~~
memmcgee
The despicable behavior at Uber is far from a few individuals. At the very
least their entire HR division is negligent at best and malicious at worse.
The problems with managers at Uber seem to apply to most of them. I'd advise
anyone working at Uber to GTFO ASAP and hope the stigma doesn't follow them
around for the rest of their career. I can hardly see anyone who worked in HR
at Uber ever working in HR again.

Uber did nothing for public transportation. They gave another way for people
with money to disregard public transportation. It's just another "innovation"
that provides another service to the rich at the expense of the common good.

~~~
ameen
While I agree that their HR division was at fault. I simply can't agree with
your observation about this being a service for the "rich".

If I wait for the bus (which is hourly) I tend to lose more than I'd gain by
going in to work on an Uber, at only $4 more.

~~~
a3n
A lot of irony packed into that logic. Like, that your time is actually worth
a lot of money, and standing on the corner costs you money. That sounds at
least relatively "rich" to me.

