Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Alphabet's Waymo Asks Judge To Block Uber From Using Self-Driving Car Secrets (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the do-the-justice dept.

Waymo, Alphabet's self-driving spinoff from Google, is formally asking a judge to block Uber from operating its autonomous vehicles, according to new documents filed in Waymo's lawsuit against Uber. From a report on The Verge: The lawsuit, which was filed last month, alleges that Uber stole key elements of its self-driving car technology from Google. Uber has called the accusations "baseless." Today in federal court, Waymo filed the sworn testimony of Gary Brown, a forensic security engineer with Google since 2013. Citing logs from Google's secure network, Brown claims that Anthony Levandowski, a former Google engineer who now runs Uber's self-driving car program, downloaded 14,000 files from a Google repository that contain design files, schematics, and other confidential information pertaining to its self-driving car project. Levandowski used his personal laptop to download the files, a fact that Brown says made it easy to track.

53 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Genie's out by gnick · · Score: 1

    As Uber continues to brush its teeth, Google scrambles to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I'm not sure a judge can order Uber to selectively forget the stolen designs. Is the idea a permanent block on Uber running self-driving cars? TFA's unclear.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    1. Re:Genie's out by TWX · · Score: 2

      The judge's ruling might well put the onus on Uber to prove that it's not using stolen data, which could mean going literally back to the drawing board with an entirely new set of staff that have never worked with the data taken from Google.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Genie's out by mjwx · · Score: 1

      As Uber continues to brush its teeth, Google scrambles to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I'm not sure a judge can order Uber to selectively forget the stolen designs. Is the idea a permanent block on Uber running self-driving cars? TFA's unclear.

      Actually courts can do quite a lot.

      They can prohibit Uber from using self driving technology all together.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Genie's out by gnick · · Score: 1

      They can prohibit Uber from using self driving technology all together.

      That's what TFA makes it sound like: "Waymo... is formally asking a judge to block Uber from operating its autonomous vehicles..." No mention of a time frame or conditions to meet to get back on the road. If this is a permanent thing, this could spell doom for Uber's long-term success. Eventually, using human drivers just won't allow them to be competitive. Then again, how "long-term" do we expect Uber to be a thing?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Genie's out by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      My guess: when Uber submits documentation for road safety, patents, copyrights, etc - that information could be submitted to a third-party arbiter to verify that the technology used is unique and not infringing upon Google's patents.

    5. Re:Genie's out by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      this could spell doom for Uber's long-term success

      This adds one more item to a long lists of things that could spell doom for Uber's success.

    6. Re:Genie's out by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      They can prohibit Uber from using self driving technology all together.

      Just because it is prohibited, doesn't really mean that Über won't do it anyway.

      In addition, Über is a new age economy company run by a smartphone app. Old "Brick and Mortar" concepts and laws like "stealing" don't apply to Über.

      If you really want to stop Über from using self driving technology, the only way to do that for certain is to put a bullet through the engine, fired from a high-powered, large caliber pistol: (.600 Nitro Express, Ruger .480, .450 Marlin BFR, .460 Magnum XVR, etc.)

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    7. Re:Genie's out by johanw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not really, if Uber is forbidden to waste its monmey on some technology that won't work for the next few centuries and even if it does work is way more expensive than the existing technology (human driver) it gets a competitive advantage over the other companies driven by mass hysteria.

    8. Re:Genie's out by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Here's the law. They can stop Uber from using the Google technology (mainly the LIDAR afaict) until it becomes common knowledge (and then they have to wait a little longer to make up for the head-start they got by stealing the secret). They can use civil seizure to ensure Uber doesn't secretly continue using the technology. They can make Uber pay damages (profits lost by Google + profits gained by Uber).

      There is also the issue of patent 8,836,922, which Google claims is being violated. It is also related to LiDAR. Also 9,368,936 and 9,086,273.

      Google is also claiming that Uber's business practices were unfair, fraudulent, and illegal. They don't really go into detail why, except to say that reasonable people would have been deceived by misrepresentations and omissions coming from Uber.

      So those are the claims. Also worth noting that Google has asserted their right to a jury trial. Here's the original lawsuit, it's fairly readable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Genie's out by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      My guess: when Uber submits documentation for road safety, patents, copyrights, etc - that information could be submitted to a third-party arbiter to verify that the technology used is unique and not infringing upon Google's patents.

      I think this is not about patents, but about trade secrets. Patents are openly published and give the patent holder a time-limited monopoly on the invention. Trade secrets are kept secret. Others are allowed to invent and then use the exact same thing, but they are not allowed to steal the secret and then use it.

    10. Re:Genie's out by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "You are.. seriously saying self-driving cars won't work for the "next few centuries"? ... Once you have the code ..."

      That doesn't contradict what he said.

      Maybe before that we'll have cars, and roads and stuff, talking to each other, in effect resulting in self driving cars, but that's not what people usually men these days by self driving cars.

    11. Re:Genie's out by TWX · · Score: 2

      I don't think that it would be all that difficult to make roads and cars talk, if countries and automakers could agree on a standard, and if those jurisdictions responsible would implement that standard widely.

      Consider the idea of embedding a guide cable into the roadbed. They already embed wiring into the road at stoplights for the inductive sensor to detect the mass of the vehicle to trigger the light, so the technology to modify the road itself while keeping it durable is there. If a protocol were developed to let cars follow the wire in the lane, and if extra readable position indicators were added to the road at increments to help keep the car calibrated for its location and to provide for data like specifics about the road and lights and intersections and the like, and if intelligent construction barriers were implemented that the cars could interrogate to know when they need to deviate from the wire in the road, it probably could make self-driving cars happen very quickly. Unfortunately that's a LOT of road to precision saw-cut and embed the wiring into, plus the power distribution to run it, plus the recordkeeping to ensure that the road data is accurate and is added to the vehicles. No one task is especially difficult and many robotic systems already use this kind of technology for following pathways, but it's simply so much to do that no one wants to take that approach.

      Instead they're pushing for cars being able to interpret the existing conditions that normal drivers have to interpret, to find lanes, to observe traffic lights, plus all of the safety stuff for interacting with objects in the real world. What they should consider doing is placing the wire in the road in cities, and then using the observational-only model on limited-access freeways where simple lane-keeping is the bulk of what's needed as there are no at-grade crossings, no traffic lights other that metered ramps to get on the freeway to begin with, and many fewer incidences of pedestrians and other non-vehicle objects on the freeway. Unfortunately to do this requires a strong degree of political will and so far that will doesn't exist.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:Genie's out by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I think this is not about patents, but about trade secrets.

      So it seems like Google is a non-practicing entity, since they don't seem to be doing any trade or commerce, or selling anything based on their work; it's all research about hypothetical future concepts.... then can their work actually be considered a trade secret?

      Seems like Google's the troll here. They talk a good game, but there's seems to be no Self-Driving car or Self-driving-car-based product Google's selling.

    13. Re:Genie's out by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly the kind of stuff I meant.

    14. Re:Genie's out by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Very likely it is an injunction to stop them using the technology until the court case is settled. That is pretty standard in many intellectual property lawsuits. Such as: https://www.wsj.com/articles/S...

      This is a way of saying "you stole our ideas, so stop using them and continuing to rack up damages".

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Re:One negative discovery after another by tattood · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uber really is a despicable company

    Name ONE other bad thing Uber has done!

    --
    WTB [sig], PST!!!
  3. Guess what Google doesn't have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A patent. Trade secrets can bite you in the ass, and this is why.

    1. Re:Guess what Google doesn't have by TWX · · Score: 2

      I was under the impression that anything created is automatically copyrighted.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Guess what Google doesn't have by HiThere · · Score: 2

      A point, but copyrights don't protect implementations. They don't even protect you against significant rephrasing...or at least they didn't used to. Making an implementation isn't the same thing as publishing.

      To me it seems the most applicable law is the one against unauthorized computer access, but that might not affect Uber, but only their employee, as it might not be possible to prove that he was acting as their agent in his actions. Of course, then you might go after Uber for receiving stolen merchandise....but copying isn't stealing, it's copyright violation, which is a separate crime. Etc.

      So I think I see why Google is first trying the path they're trying.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Guess what Google doesn't have by TWX · · Score: 3, Informative

      Copyrights do protect printed circuit board patterns and the operating code that runs on the computers built on those circuit boards.

      It sounds like Uber has implemented PCBs and code that is directly taken from Google. Not even a two-team approach like Compaq did when they reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS, but actually taking Google's layouts and fabricating them and running Google's code on them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Guess what Google doesn't have by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Where the rubber meets the road, it does. Particularly in CA. No patent, no copyright, in my brain, mine.

      Things generally known are not secrets, trade or otherwise. The 'Kentucky fried rat' recipe (seven seas italian dressing mix, ground to a find powder and added to breading) is a 'trade secret'. Using 50k lidar systems in self driving cars and skipping all the cameras/image analysis steps is not.

      The only thing they have is the action of copying the files and the fact he took other's work product. Which was likely not in his brain at the time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Guess what Google doesn't have by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      They have three: patents no: 8,836,922; 9,368,936 and 9,086,273. and they are mentioned in the lawsuit.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Guess what Google doesn't have by TWX · · Score: 2

      Really? I was under the impression that Google's Java license came from Sun and allowed them to do quite a lot more than a normal Java license would, and Oracle didn't like the terms and tried to alter the deal when they took over Sun.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Guess what Google doesn't have by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      No, Google and Sun were negotiating for a while, but they never came to an agreement. Sun said internally, "oh well, we like Android, so we'll let it slide."

      Oracle bought Sun and said, "Whether we like Android or not has nothing to do with it, we want to sue." Google never got a license, and that's why they're in a lawsuit still today.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Guess what Google doesn't have by shentino · · Score: 1

      I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further.

  4. Re:One negative discovery after another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Greyball program to purposeful provide false information to cops and regulators.

  5. Sounds Like Uber's in deep trouble by foxalopex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From what I've been able to piece together online, it looks like Uber might be in serious trouble. Google apparently really started to suspect something was wrong when one of the LiDAR component providers noticed both companies were sourcing the same parts with Uber apparently using virtually identical circuit board layouts. The timing looks bad as well with the the small startup company being immediately bought up by Uber and sudden development of Self-Driving technology. Plus you're talking about a company who knowingly tested their Self-Driving cars on the street without bothering to purchase a licence to do so. Even if Uber gets off scott free there's this entire question of Patents too which Google probably entirely holds...

    1. Re:Sounds Like Uber's in deep trouble by TWX · · Score: 1

      PCBs would be copyright rather than patent.

      I'm curious as to penalties based on availability of sample hardware itself or lack thereof. It's one thing to buy one's competitor's product in a retail setting, take it apart, and copy it. Still can be illegal, but it's not the same as taking a design that one should have had no access-to to begin with and producing it because the design was outright stolen from corporate records rather than simply bought on the free market.

      I suppose the nature and timeline of the negotiations between the employee that left Google and Uber will matter. If Uber was courting the employee before he left Google then it may be difficult to claim that they did not know that the employee was stealing Google's proprietary data, especially given how quickly the Uber developments occurred.

      It's generally not considered illegal to reimplement concepts that one has learned elsewhere assuming that any reasonable and legal duration of non-compete has passed, but it's another matter to just copy the implemented work-for-hire from the original company into the new company.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Sounds Like Uber's in deep trouble by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Google uses off the shelf Lidar. Anybody that bought one, would get the same circuit board layouts. Google could buy their Lidar supplier, then they might own patents, but lidar is kind of old tech given patents length.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Sounds Like Uber's in deep trouble by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      FWIW, the lawsuit claims that they use a custom Lidar:

      Today, most firms in the self-driving space purchase LiDAR systems from third-party providers. Waymo, on the other hand, uses its own LiDAR systems that are carefully tailored – based on Waymo’s extensive research and testing – for use in fully autonomous vehicle

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Sounds Like Uber's in deep trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      PCBs would be copyright rather than patent.

      As you are correcting the GP, I feel obligated to correct you, too.

      PCBs would be protected by Mask Works. That is different than Copyright, much like Copyright is different than Patent.

  6. Re:turnabout by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Uber may or may not have been guilty, but:

    downloaded 14,000 files from a Google repository

    I have a really hard time feeling sorry for a company whose entire business is to harvest as much data about every human being as they possibly can, in every domain they possibly can, even if you take serious measures to keep any info out of their hands.

    Stealing trade secrets is not the same thing at all.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  7. Re:One negative discovery after another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FTC fine for misrepresenting drivers earnings

  8. Re:One negative discovery after another by TWX · · Score: 2

    Using a "company store" model to essentially indebt drivers who need cars but can't afford cars and probably shouldn't be buying cars that expensive in the first place.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  9. Re:No secret by TWX · · Score: 1

    One still has to write the programs to handle all aspects of autonomous operation, and those programs are based on subroutines that people have written. I would not be surprised if the documents stolen describe those subroutines in excruciating detail.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  10. Re:One negative discovery after another by Shatrat · · Score: 2

    "Don't talk to cops" applies to software and companies you don't like, just as well as to you and I.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  11. Re:One negative discovery after another by gnick · · Score: 1

    Name ONE other bad thing Uber has done!

    Uber hid my car keys to make me use their service. Of course, I can't prove it... Yet.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  12. Re:turnabout by HiThere · · Score: 1

    OK, I'll bite, why not?

    I could come up with differences, but my first attempt didn't make Google look any better than Uber on this ground, so what's your selection of differences.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  13. Re:turnabout by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Saying something is a 'trade secret' is _not_ the same thing as it being so. I've had employers claim that things right out of 'Art of Computer Programming' are theirs. I just ignored them and got on with my life.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  14. Re:One negative discovery after another by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Anybody being forced to sign anything? No...not a problem.

    You could make almost the same case against all new car vendors. Not their job to slap prospective new car buyers and say 'WTF are you thinking? Buying an insanely rapidly depreciating asset on a six year payment plan?'

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. Re:One negative discovery after another by TWX · · Score: 1

    That excuse worked so well for Volkswagen and their diesel cars...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  16. Re:turnabout by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    I have a really hard time feeling sorry for a company whose entire business is to harvest as much data about every human being as they possibly can, in every domain they possibly can, even if you take serious measures to keep any info out of their hands.

    I have a really hard time with people that are happy to consume the vast services Google offers but then complain about their profit model. If you don't like how they do business, don't do business with them. Don't create a Google account. Don't use Google search. Don't use Gmail. Don't buy a Google-licensed Android device. Don't use Chrome. And so on.

    When you use Google services or buy their hardware products, you've eaten the cake. If you've eaten the cake, you pay for the cake. If you don't want to pay for the cake, don't eat the cake. And most of all, if you eat the cake, stop whining about poor the cake tastes.

  17. Re:turnabout by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, I'll bite, why not?

    Because in one case, you are knowingly exchanging usage data and patterns for services, and the other is corporate espionage. Any other hard questions?

  18. Re:One negative discovery after another by TWX · · Score: 1

    The salesman is at arms-length to the buyer in a private party purchase. There is no additional business connection. The uber model used Subprime loans/leases and advertised profits to those buyers that apparently could not be realized, with cars that these people arguably could not afford.

    In my experience, if work requires you to pay them for something then it becomes morally shady. It's not necessarily egregious if the item is provided at a steep discount or is not a capital purchase, but it does not sound like the drivers got steep discounts and cars should qualify as capital purchases.

    Besides, being morally wrong does not always mean being legally wrong. "Bad" as in, "Name ONE other bad thing Uber has done!" could easily be interpreted as the moral-grounds rather than legal grounds.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  19. Prove it ! by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    There can be legitimate reasons for downloading files. One might want to be certain that patents are not about to be violated and make certain that different approaches to various items are taken. I saw this occur with an expensive electronic device. The patent holder did not understand the limit of the scope of his patent and sued. He ended up apologizing and paying both sides legal fees. One needs proof in hand before making a complaint or it can get quite expensive.

  20. Re:turnabout by Hentes · · Score: 1

    And then demonstarte that they can't even keep their own data safe.

  21. Re:One negative discovery after another by Shatrat · · Score: 1

    Yes, it absolutely did. They got to keep selling cars for years before someone external found out about it. If they had been smart they could have used that time to get fixes in place and be ready to control the damage, but either way they had nothing to gain from turning themselves in.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  22. Re:One negative discovery after another by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Volkswagen made a huge mistake. They talked to the cops.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Re:One negative discovery after another by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    All major new car vendors have finance wings that will give you a below market loan/lease in order to get you to sign.

    Lots of the leases have predictable over mileage payments that will be due at the end of the lease.

    Chumps are going to get chumped. It is an immoral act to let a sucker keep his money.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  24. Re:One negative discovery after another by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Explain how that is bad? In what sense providing government with fake information is bad? In what world providing the oppressive collectivist government regime with fake information of any kind is bad? AFAIC every single person should stop paying taxes, should never cooperate with any government official at any level on any issue.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  25. Re:One negative discovery after another by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    A sucker and his money will soon be parted.

    As that's a given, it becomes important for the money to go to it's best use. By definition, that's for me to get it.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  26. Re:One negative discovery after another by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Toyota sells diesels in the US? When did that happen?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  27. Re:turnabout by shentino · · Score: 1

    Who cares about Google? I'm more worried about Uber getting rewarded for ripping them off. If Uber stole shit from Google or cheated on their research by betraying Google's trust, then the last thing I want is for Uber to get rewarded for it.