
A Public Records Request Triggered Waymo’s Self-Driving Car Lawsuit - denzil_correa
https://backchannel.com/how-my-public-records-request-triggered-waymos-self-driving-car-lawsuit-1699ff35ac28#.hkreyez65
======
Pilfer
Nowhere in the article does the author prove his request triggered Waymo’s
lawsuit. Google's own explanation for their lawsuit is at odds author's claim.
For a refresher, Google said [https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-
against-otto-...](https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-
and-uber-86f4f98902a1)

 _Recently, we [Google] received an unexpected email. One of our suppliers
specializing in LiDAR components sent us an attachment (apparently
inadvertently) of machine drawings of what was purported to be Uber’s LiDAR
circuit board — except its design bore a striking resemblance to Waymo’s
unique LiDAR design._

It's clear Google's statement contradicts the author's premise. The author can
claim whatever he wants but to me this reads like a baseless puff piece.

~~~
pwg
About 10 paragraphs down is this paragraph:

> After reading Waymo’s complaint, I asked the Nevada agencies for a copy of
> the Alphabet company’s request. The DMV called me back in confusion. Nevada
> had never received an Open Records Act request directly from Waymo, nor from
> any other Alphabet company. What the agency had received was a request from
> an attorney, who did not provide an affiliation, requesting duplicate
> documents from my request last fall — from when I was investigating Otto and
> Uber. I had been chasing my own tail.

~~~
hugelgupf
...So what?

This might be true, but it still means that an attorney (seemingly?) acting on
behalf of Alphabet/Waymo seems to have requested the records. This doesn't
seem to contradict the document they filed with the court.

~~~
masklinn
> ...So what?

So it seems Waymo literally just requested a duplicate of the author's own
request, on which the author had based their previous reporting.

Which doesn't require much effort to infer that Waymo was just checking if the
author's previous reporting was actually truthful and possibly looking for
some more details in the same document the author had previously brought to
light in their reporting, and that was sufficient to finally launch their
legal action.

~~~
DannyBee
"and that was sufficient to finally launch their legal action."

Right,except nowhere does any of this actually prove or imply that.

In fact, he asked waymo: "When I checked in with Waymo about this turn of
events, the company said only that its Nevada records request was to
investigate Otto’s lidar. It did not comment on my role in uncovering the
information they needed."

IE they refused to confirm the author's ego-driven search to prove he's
actually important.

~~~
emodendroket
What incentive do they have to say yes, if it was?

------
tobltobs
The most interesting bit of this article is imho that "Uber will soon be
assessing other companies’ compliance with safety rules.":

    
    
      It was in a document Otto had submitted in support of its application 
      to operate the state’s first Autonomous Technology Certification Facility (ATCF). 
      This is an independent organization that will assess all autonomous vehicles 
      that want to operate (rather than just test) in Nevada, checking that 
      they comply with the state’s safety requirements and traffic laws. 
      The application was a success, and construction of the facility is now underway 
      in a suburb of Las Vegas. (Yes, you read that right — Uber will soon be assessing 
      other companies’ compliance with safety rules.)

~~~
DannyBee
Right, buried in all of this silly "wow look how important I think i am" crap
is something actually worth reporting on. But instead, the author is too busy
trying to peacock to actually give the reader the stuff the might care about.

