It is typical for the terms of the license include giving back and not using the actually stolen documents/code. The license would just allow them to redesign without worrying about the other party indirectly using the trade secrets. It's because you can't really close pandora's box.
Though in many cases its beneficial to use this as a way to become a key supplier to a competitor. If it's not a winner take all market (and I doubt this is), then it might be more profitable to take a cut from Uber than to reduce competition by one.
A Google / Uber joint venture where Google provides the software and Uber does fleet management could be unbeatable, for example.
The protection of IPR is a strategic concern of Google. Outright theft committed by the highest levels in both companies is hard to settle for them because of the message it sends. Google may perceive to have more at stake than simply the self driving related IPR.
Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more. He won't make it out with his reputation or his power intact.
> Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more.
It really isn't hard to imagine - no one is too rich to be greedy, even billionaires want more money.
Because lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades!) and Google is a major investor in Uber. Google/Waymo might not want to actually destroy the company.
They'd own a broken company. Bear in mind that this sort of litigation can run five to ten years if you let the lawyers on both sides wrestle to their hearts' content. It becomes all consuming. Executives spend much of their time preparing for depositions, tussling about what ambiguous documents mean, tussling about what obvious documents might mean if you try hard to misinterpet them, etc.
It's no fun to be working in such an environment. Everyone who can afford to get out, gets out.
Perhaps even enough cash to create the dominant ride hail company from scratch.
Coca-cola was about to buy Gatorate for $13B. Buffett squashed the deal at the 11th hour and Pepsi paid $14B. Buffett presumably thought that Coca-cola could use the $13B to make its own sports drink. It's still not clear which company was wiser.
What do you mean by that? Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay? Or do you mean indirectly, like, Uber gets found liable for say $10bn, and Google offers isntead to buy a controlling share of Uber and then forgive the liability?
> Could they actually be awarded ownership of Uber if the damages were larger than a cash amount Uber could pay?
Sure, although that's an extremely unlikely outcome. Normally the company would be liquidated to pay the judgment (this is basically what happened in Bollea (Hogan) v Gawker - Gawker couldn't afford the damages, so had to declare bankruptcy and sell itself to pay for them).
It amounts to the same thing though - when the company gets liquidated, Google can buy all the assets and continue to operate the business, knowing that all the money they pay will be going right back into their own pockets.
Obviously, it runs the risk someone else will come along and buy the company instead, but any other buyer will have significant ongoing IP concerns by using google tech vs re-engineering stuff. Hence, Google will probably outbid other buyers since the company has more utility to them than to others.
Google Ventures owns only 6% of Uber. If they can drag this out sufficently, then Uber cannot IPO, will have burnt all their cash - and the whole company will be at the mercy of their biggest creditor who just got awarded a billion-dollar penalty payment.
The math still doesn't work. Right now 6% of Uber is worth about $4 billion, if you believe the latest venture valuation. (Make adjustments as you see fit.) If this is litigated until Uber collapses in a heap of dust, Google ends up owning 100% of a heap of dust.
No money left to pay off the judgment. Most of the talent is gone, and the folks that remain are hardly motivated to rebuild the business for their new masters. The Napster mess is instructive. The brand might live on, but no one gets rich in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown
If the article's predictions come true, gaining control of Uber isn't Google's only motivation. They have a secondary motivation: To set a precedent that serves as an example to other people who have the opportunity to sell or buy their trade secrets.
If there's a $680 million prize for a successful theft, and people think the chances of being caught are low, you'll need a big penalty to act as an effective deterrent.
> If there's a $680 million prize for a successful theft, and people think the chances of being caught are low, you'll need a big penalty to act as an effective deterrent.
The problem here is the prize. It's not a paltry few hundred millions. Just in the USA the yearly car sales are above 500 billion and we are talking about disrupting that big time. Really, really big time. It is not unreasonable to think that private car ownership will become deprecated in 20-30 years. Do you think Google won't be happy to burn the $260M they invested in Uber and a hundred more for lawyers over the years to make sure Uber doesn't get an illicit advantage when the time comes of who will be the doorkeeper?
Can you imagine -- and I know Google can -- the possibilities of an ad company selling all the cars there is? Or the software therein which amounts to the same. Your self driving taxi today is free you just need to listen / watch / immerse / whatever happens by then to ads enroute. You can't even count the trillions they would make.
On the other hand, if they think that Uber is likely to go down anyways, a big settlement could allow Alphabet to recover a disproportional amount relative to other investors. Timing would be key, ideally they would want to settle while there is still cash, and use the legal battle as an excuse to find a buyer for their stake while there is still hope.
Thinking in conspiracy theory mode I wonder if it could be possible that Alphabet knew about the theft for longer than they admit, waiting for Uber's self driving projects to grow more valuable, kind of like a secret stake. Would that even be legal?
