
Alphabet adds patent claim to Uber intellectual property theft lawsuit - soheil
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-alphabet-lawsuit-idUSKBN16H2GQ
======
jeffdavis
Has google ever filed a lawsuit without merit before? It seems like they have
a record of acting responsibly, so I would think this looks bad for Uber.

~~~
GooglyMoogly
Google has only ever filed 2 patent suits. This one against Uber, and one
against BT. The BT one was only after BT gave meritless patents to patent
trolls under the condition that the patent trolls would immediately sue Google
and Android phone manufacturers.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21458094](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21458094)

------
visarga
Google may be in the right, but this litigious stance does not play well with
the democratization of self driving cars. I hope there will be multiple
companies offering SDC and a few open source ones, not litigated out of
existence. I don't want SDC technology be kept secret like Google Rank.

It is very important that automation be generally available as open source and
not restricted by patents, because it might accentuate the migration of
capital to the top 1%. We need to empower the 99% as well, as owners of
automation, not simple clients of Google and the likes.

~~~
commenter55
Go read the actual court filings. All the news articles are leaving out
important details. Techcrunch has them linked at the end of their article:
[https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/waymo-files-for-an-
injunct...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/waymo-files-for-an-injunction-
against-ubers-use-of-its-self-driving-tech/)

Important bits:

injunction page 23 line 12-14: Waymo is not seeking to enjoin Defendants from
pursuing self driving cars in toto. Waymo merely asks that Defendants not be
allowed to use Waymos trade secrets in doing so.

Page 24 8-9: Moreover, Defendants would be free to use non-infringing
alternative components in their business, such as the same third-party LiDAR
system that they had previously used before switching to Waymos patented
technology.

(Fun fact) From the Gary Brown testimony, page 4 lines 6-8 (Paraphrasing) The
"database" was an SVN server, and the specialty software installed was
TortoiseSVN.

~~~
Qwertious
"asks that Defendants not be allowed to use Waymos trade secrets in doing so."

I was under the impression that trade secrets were explicitly _not legally
protected_ , and the entire point of a patent was that you publicly document
your invention, in exchange for legal protection.

~~~
jlarocco
If Uber had independently come up with the same ideas then there wouldn't be a
case.

The real issue is that the guy "stole" the trade secrets and gave them to
another company. No doubt he signed an employment contract with Google saying
he couldn't do that.

~~~
londons_explore
Notice that this guy isn't actually a party to this litigation.

He might steal half a billion dollars worth of technology, be found out, and
still get away scott free.

------
Alex3917
> Waymo, which originally said that two Lidar patents were infringed, on
> Friday in an amended complaint added a third patent. It also said that Uber
> infringed unpatented trade secrets, such as parameters and measurements for
> the light beam used in Lidar.

Are these trade secrets related to the patents? And if so, is Google risking
having their patents invalidated by admitting they left out the best mode?

~~~
jacquesm
Trade secrets and patents are roughly each others opposite. A patent is
something you disclose to stake a claim in order to either license the tech or
to use it in some other strategic way. A trade secret is something your
company knows, does not disclose and guards as much as possible from becoming
public knowledge (for instance, through NDA's with those employees that will
be given access to that knowledge).

Examples of each:

\- patent: Dyson's patent on their vacuum cleaner technology

\- trade secret: The formulation of Coca Cola

So no, they are not related at all, and this does not risk Google having their
patents invalidated.

~~~
Alex3917
Your example seems a little contrived. Obviously the formula for Coca Cola
isn't the best mode for a vacuum cleaner.

My point was that if their trade secret is also the best mode for the patent,
then seemingly that puts them at risk for violating the best mode requirement
and having their patents revoked, depending on when they were filed.

~~~
jacquesm
It's not as if a patent will contain the full implementation details and _of
course_ corporations will use whatever tools we give them to protect their
business interests and if that means leaving out a bunch of numbers from a
patent application if the application will stand on it's own merits then you
will see them do so.

Patent law is not always the most intuitive thing and it works in ways that
tech people usually do not readily comprehend because to them many things are
'obvious' that are not obvious to a patent examiner or someone 'skilled in the
art'.

And many times the software people are right (especially when it comes to
software), and just as many times they are wrong or simply confused by the
jargon surrounding patents.

The 'best mode' is not a requirement for a patent at all, you either have
something patentable, or you do not. If it stands the test of time (other
paying their license fees, you winning court cases against parties infringing)
then it was a strong patent. If you come up with a better mode later on that's
fine and need not be disclosed.

Whether or not a patent was the very best patent that you could have taken out
is - as far as I know - not of any material impact to your chances of winning
such cases.

But what I do know is this: in some places breaking NDA's and spreading trade
secrets around is a very dumb thing to do so if Google can make that claim
stick the other party has a serious extra problem.

The patents will be dealt with on their own, regardless of any 'modes'.

Ideally this should all be disclosed, including future improvements but it's
been a long time since patents were used for their original intended purpose
anyway, these days it is probably best to think of them as weaponized IP.

~~~
MereInterest
>It's not as if a patent will contain the full implementation details

Forgive me for my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what a patent is intended
for? An inventor discloses how the invention works, and is given a monopoly in
exchange. If the patent doesn't give the details of how something works, then
why should society pay the inventor for it by granting a monopoly over it?

~~~
lstyls
As an existence proof: the infamous apple "rounded corners" patent[0] that was
granted in 2012 is based entirely on design merits. There is nothing in the
patent about details of manufacture from what I can tell. IANAL.

[0]:
[http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1701443/USD670286S1.pdf](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1701443/USD670286S1.pdf)

~~~
mcbits
That's a design patent, an entirely different class of patents.

------
rjeli
>Waymo said in its initial lawsuit that it was inadvertently copied on an
email from a supplier with blueprints of Uber’s circuit board design for its
lidar technology

~~~
hawkice
This claim is so absurdly easy to verify with that 3rd party that I'm actually
decently sure this isn't corporate espionage.

~~~
rjeli
Yeah, wasn't thinking of espionage - more like someone at the manufacturer
thinking "hmm, these are exactly the same designs... I should make this
known... whoops, sent it to the wrong person!"

~~~
londons_explore
One might imagine a verbal conversation between google (who already suspect
their design has been stolen) and the supplier (who they know is the only
company in the world who can make it) saying:

"Ya know that uber design which is the same as ours? Mind accidentally CC'ing
johnsmith@google.com instead of johnsmith@uber.com? Since johnsmith used to
work for google, it would be an honest mistake, and would give us the evidence
we need to take this to court"

------
yeukhon
So I have a serious question. If I worked on Google's self-driving project,
how can I prevent me from using that knowledge at another company? More
importantly, if i were truly one of the founding members of the projects, I
would know inside out and best practices. So seriously, what should I do? Do I
just pretend "I don't know the best practice" BS at my staff meeting?

~~~
EnFinlay
Best practices !== detailed designs

Best practices are not 9.7 gigs of data, designs, and calculations.

Edit: I am assuming that the 9.7 gigs was data, designs and calculations.
Could have been the best cat pictures ever. I just don't know.

~~~
yeukhon
But what about knowing how to implement the algorithm? Even something like
implementing a dashboard for SRE/DevOps, I can rebuild it given enough time
again.

~~~
Qworg
The key statement is "given enough time". Innovation keeps moving; you're
falling behind, even as you're trying to re-implement something you've done
before.

------
unityByFreedom
Any lawyers know what the likely time frame is on this for some sort of
resolution?

This doesn't really seem like much of a development to an outsider. Just more
added to the pile.

~~~
DannyBee
(Note: I'm a lawyer, i work for Google, but not in any interesting capacity
here. Being part of Google, and not waymo, i don't even have any idea about
anything here :P)

Define "resolution".

The preliminary injunction will get ruled on fairly quickly (months most
likely). You should expect either side to attempt an appeal of preliminary
injunction as well (unlike most non-final judgements, in federal court, you
can appeal preliminary injunctions)

The actual case will take years to resolve, not counting appeals, etc.

Mark lemley crunched the data:
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597919](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597919)

Note: Time to resolution includes settlement. So time to resolution is average
of 1.28 years in n.d. cal, because most things settle.

Time to trial if it goes to trial, in n.d. cal, is 2.92 years

So a while if it goes to trial :)

~~~
chrisper
What does a lawyer do on a daily basis at a tech company?

~~~
DannyBee
Lawyer is an interesting word. Loaded, in fact to most engineers. I used to
run open source licensing while helping to build code.google.com (I helped
write Subversion back in the day, and built significant parts of
code.google.com).

These days, I still help out running open source licensing and compliance at a
high level, but have just about handed all of it off to very good people who
take care of it. I still get involved in M&A, policy issues, large or complex
fires, etc. Even that is slowing down as people become more and more
experienced. Which is great[1]

Now I spend most of my time running the C++ language teams
(compiler/toolchains/core libraries/etc).

So, lawyer wise, these days, if they directly ask me for help, usually it
means something has gone wrong.

[1] Truthfully, there are not enough really good open source lawyer types who
actually understand the interplay of actual engineering and open source really
well. The more i can help create, the better.

~~~
rosser
That path — pursuing a JD toward the end of helping open source projects — has
appealed very strongly to me on and off over many years, but I've always been
dubious it's something sustainable.

Neither law school, nor living in areas where you'd probably need to, in order
to have access to the most relevant courts and highest densities of potential
clients are cheap.

I'm sure the occasional settlement wrung out of non-compliant companies or
whatever would help, but I'm also pretty sure "occasional" is very much the
operative word there.

I'm really glad to hear it's more of a thing than I'd thought it was, though I
will admit to some skepticism that working for someone like Google or whomever
wouldn't somehow subtly taint one's motivations and efforts towards _their_
goals, rather than what's best for Open Source writ large.

Then again, I was recently reminded of the Chade-Meng Tan quote about doing
"what's best for the world," and then "wait[ing] to get fired," so maybe my
cynicism isn't entirely warranted here, at least in the specific.

~~~
DannyBee
What do you want to help them with, precisely?

Most open source legal work is in companies.

"Neither law school, nor living in areas where you'd probably need to, in
order to have access to the most relevant courts and highest densities of
potential clients are cheap. "

It's definitely not worth it for the money. I did it, originally, because it
became clear to me at a young age that patents were going to destroy the
software industry, and that the average engineer was just going to sit around
and complain on usenet (now hacker news i guess) about it :P

When i joined google, i actually spent a long ass time fighting for patent
reform, too. But it got too lonely (google was often the only one fighting the
good fight and the other side gets very good at smearing, etc), and after many
years, you also have to survive. But the second you do, you become the
villain. People want absolutes.

"I'm sure the occasional settlement wrung out of non-compliant companies or
whatever would help, but I'm also pretty sure "occasional" is very much the
operative word there. "

The problem here is that the damages are not likely to pay for the lawsuit in
most cases. Sad, but true.

"I'm really glad to hear it's more of a thing than I'd thought it was, though
I will admit to some skepticism that working for someone like Google or
whomever wouldn't somehow subtly taint one's motivations and efforts towards
their goals, rather than what's best for Open Source writ large. " Actually,
watching and participating in the politics of GCC did that long before i ever
joined google :P.

The truth is always in between. Nobody is completely altruistic, nobody is
completely self-interested.

At the same time, when i train new googlers, we explicitly tell them we comply
with licenses mainly because it's the right damn thing to do. And we believe
it.

~~~
rosser
> _What do you want to help them with, precisely?_

Primarily ensuring license compliance, but also things like trademarks or
patents as needed. Really, whatever moves the broader cause of Free/Open
Source Software forward.

> _Actually, watching and participating in the politics of GCC did that long
> before i ever joined google :P._

Fair point. :|

Thanks for taking the time to address my thoughts and concerns. It truly is
appreciated.

------
chaser7016
Hopefully they get an injunction that ceases Uber from its self driving car
dreams and or wipes them out of existence.

You can not act as they have without major consequence(karma)!

~~~
commenter55
As I posted in the other Waymo thread on the front page.

Go read the actual court filings. All the news articles are leaving out
important details. Techcrunch has them linked at the end of their article:
[https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/waymo-files-for-an-
injunct...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/waymo-files-for-an-injunction-
against-ubers-use-of-its-self-driving-tech/)

Important bits:

injunction page 23 line 12-14: Waymo is not seeking to enjoin Defendants from
pursuing self driving cars in toto. Waymo merely asks that Defendants not be
allowed to use Waymos trade secrets in doing so.

Page 24 8-9: Moreover, Defendants would be free to use non-infringing
alternative components in their business, such as the same third-party LiDAR
system that they had previously used before switching to Waymos patented
technology.

(Fun fact) From the Gary Brown testimony, page 4 lines 6-8 (Paraphrasing) The
"database" was an SVN server, and the specialty software installed was
TortoiseSVN.

~~~
chaser7016
Well Google should be more aggressive but that would be hypocritical of them
as they do this stuff themselves to the little guys with no money only a
dream/gumption(met with them in 2013 to discuss my audio syncing across
multiple devices tech.. it was like that Silicon Valley episode but worse) to
im sure their wealthy competitors.

------
bobedybobbob
I was under the impression Google (or Google Ventures) owned part of Uber -
surely this will make things complicated?

~~~
matt4077
Not at all. They'll just end up owning a lot more of it.

------
petra
So now, since those trade secrets are made public via the court, anybody can
use them, right ?

Does this have a big influence on Google's competitive positioning ?

~~~
polishTar
It's likely for any trade secrets to be filed under-seal. Probably won't
change anything.

~~~
londons_explore
Theres a bunch of info in the filings (64 beams, single lens, curved focal
plane, etc.)

------
lkesteloot
Okay, I'm all for protecting intellectual property and dissuading employees
from taking IP with them. But if this injunction delays self-driving cars by
even a little bit, it'll cost thousands of lives. If the deaths were going to
happen tomorrow, no judge would allow it. But because they'll happen seven
years from now, no one considers it.

~~~
EnFinlay
I dunno about all that. "For the greater good" "Ends justify the means" all
come to mind. If it's theft, it's theft. If it's within the law to stop them
from continuing to develop off of allegedly stolen IP, then that's the right
decision.

It's not like pharma companies have a free for all where everyone can steal
from everyone because the more development on cancer treatment eleventy
billion the better.

To put it differently, there's no guarantee that preventing Uber from working
on this technology will cost lives in the future (Uber might not exist in 7
years and the technology might be a dead end), therefore it shouldn't be a
factor.

~~~
lkesteloot
But if those deaths were to occur tomorrow, absolutely the ends would justify
the means. There's no judge in America who would kill 10k people tomorrow just
to do justice to Uber. But because those are in the future (and as you say,
hard to prove now), it's not even considered. But they're real deaths of real
people.

There's going to be a year when self-driving cars become ubiquitous and deaths
from cars drop to almost zero. The previous year, many thousands will die in
cars. Those deaths are avoidable by pushing this agenda forward, and
preventing Uber from moving forward hurts the agenda.

~~~
EnFinlay
> hard to prove now ... But they're real deaths of real people.

That's a contradiction in my books. I don't want to get into a metaphysical
discussion of what "real" is, but I challenge you to say that things that may
not happen are real. Example: Landing humans on Mars is not real.

> There's going to be a year when self-driving cars become ubiquitous and
> deaths from cars drop to almost zero.

Yes. I do agree with this.

> and preventing Uber from moving forward hurts the agenda.

This is not fact. I could argue that the greatest barrier to self-driving cars
reducing vehicle deaths to 0 is legislation. I could then argue that the most
harmful thing to pass that legislation is early, highly publicized failures of
that technology. Finally, I would argue that of all the tech companies in a
position to implement said technology, Uber is the MOST likely to push it too
fast and cause a highly public, negative event (given their current cloud of
doom). Therefore, I conclude that the most important thing to save lives is
prevent Uber from implementing that technology.

But it's all moot because none of that is real. Just like your assertion.

~~~
lkesteloot
> Uber is the MOST likely to push it too fast

Sure, I think that's a plausible scenario. It's also plausible that Uber will
succeed (they've succeeded a lot!) and this will light a fire under everyone's
butt and create amazing competition, pushing all car makers into this space
earlier than they would have otherwise.

Of course we don't _know_ , but that doesn't mean we shouldn't _guess_. My
scenario above seems most likely to me, and therefore stopping Uber lets car
makers rest of their laurels a bit longer.

And by the way I would take this further: I'd like to government to provide
immunity to self-driving car manufacturers for the next few years while they
develop their technology, the same way that vaccine makers are immune to
health damages from their products.

Remember that we should be willing to kill hundreds of people with self-
driving cars just to push the technology forward even one week. (600 people
per week die in the U.S. in cars.) Of course I agree with you that this is
politically untenable, but it's still what should be done.

~~~
EnFinlay
> Remember that we should be willing to kill hundreds of people with self-
> driving cars just to push the technology forward even one week

I will never agree to that. A negligent death is a negligent death. We are not
on the same page and I don't feel there is any potential benefit to a
continued discussion. Good day.

------
KKKKkkkk1
Google is now a company that holds a patent on a product, does not produce or
market said product, but sues other companies for trying to produce that
product for alleged infringement of the patent.

~~~
unityByFreedom
Apples and oranges.

Google's active development of self driving tech is widely known.

The same can't be said of patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures who never
intend to produce anything.

Intent, while it may not currently apply to patent law, does apply in other
areas of law. Perhaps it will never apply to patents. But the public is not so
short sighted as to not see the difference here.

