Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Alphabet Wants Its Lawsuit Against Uber To Play Out Publicly (recode.net)

Posted by BeauHD on from the sit-back-and-relax dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: The company filed an opposition request late last night to Uber's motion for arbitration. If the case went to arbitration, an alternate form for dispute resolution, it would remain in private. Alphabet self-driving subsidiary Waymo "has not consented to arbitrate this dispute with Uber," the new filing said, "and Waymo cannot be coerced into arbitration simply because the trade secrets that Uber stole and that Uber is using in Uber's self-driving cars happen to come from former Waymo employees. That is not the law." Alphabet alleges that its proprietary self-driving technology is being used by the ride-hailing company illegally. The Google parent company claims that Uber's self-driving head at the center of the case, Anthony Levandowski, stole 14,000 files from Alphabet, where he worked on self-driving technology before leaving to launch autonomous truck startup Otto. Uber acquired Otto in August. Alphabet alleged the files Levandowski stole include designs for Alphabet's lidar -- light detection and ranging -- technology. Lidar is a key component to most self-driving systems. Legal arguments aside, there are questions surrounding what might motivate each company's position on openness of proceedings. Alphabet's opposition suggested Uber is seeking to delay proceedings, including a hearing on an injunction Alphabet wants against Uber and to prevent public access to proceedings. "Uber does not like what the public is learning through this litigation about Uber's illegal and unfair competition," the latest filing said.

35 comments

  1. Remember kids by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Arbitration is just for suckers like you. Corporations will force you to agree to arbitration and drop your right to sue. But for them it's jury trials all the way.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re: Remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There a logic or reference here that I can not follow or do not know; please explain?

    2. Re: Remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's that Uber vehicles are rapemobiles, so Uber's the only way the transvestite is gonna get any?

    3. Re: Remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a contract manager at Google, you mark out arbitration clauses and tell the other side you won't do business unless they agree. People are much more willing to do what Google demands than some random Joe applying for a credit card.

    4. Re:Remember kids by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Uber knows they are screwed in this situation, so almost anything they can change gives them a better chance.

      Google's LIDAR designs are all patented, so they are public anyway. They don't need to hide it in a trial.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Remember kids by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Arbitration is just for suckers like you.

      Or for people that want reasonable prices. Lawsuits are expensive, and those costs are passed on to customers. Arbitration is dramatically less expensive (for both parties). I have been through both civil lawsuits and private arbitration, and I would choose to arbitrate every time. I am happy to sign the arbitration clause in any contract, and put them in every contract that I initiate.

    6. Re: Remember kids by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Not sure about that. The case is over trade secrets , so google might be suing outside of arbitration to ensure the outcome is on public record if it needs to be referenced in a patent application they haven't made yet , to avert uber ambushing the application with (stolen) prior art

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    7. Re: Remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like someone has tranny cock envy!

    8. Re:Remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is when arbitration is mandatory, and there is no possibility to start a lawsuit. International treaties are pushing hard for that.

    9. Re:Remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're somewhat close to Insightful, but miss the main point.

      Arbitration can only be forced by contract. A corporations can't force random people into arbitration when they have a dispute, but corporations and their customers obviously do have a contractual relation. On the other hand, a corporation can't force thieves into arbitration; no contract. What Alphabet is pointing out here is exactly this point: Uber does not have a contract with Waymo, and merely employing former Waymo staff does not create such a contract.

      However, this might be a borderline case. Waymo is trying to enforce NDA's on its former employees, and those are in fact legal contracts. We don't know the exact wording in these contract, and it will hinge on the terms&definitions in there whether Uber has a case for arbitration.

    10. Re:Remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arbitration is just for suckers like you. Corporations will force you to agree to arbitration and drop your right to sue. But for them it's jury trials all the way.

      And if your country's laws make jury trials mandatory, an international treaty will override them.

    11. Re:Remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not necessarily true. It depends on the laws of the country. In the US, the constitution is the highest level of law and no treaty can override it. The constitution then defines treaty law to be the second highest form of law, but if it defined federal law to be higher than treaty law, then federal law could override treaties. Granted it would make treaties pointless at that point, hence why treaties are considered higher laws than federal laws. And at any rate, if you have a law mandating jury trials, you'd be an idiot for signing a treaty requiring binding arbitration.

      That being said, treaties are a weird thing in my mind anyway. A country can always choose to no longer honor a treaty at any point they want. I think the only repercussions for failing to honor one is the bad blood that would be created from not staying true to your word.

    12. Re:Remember kids by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The problem is when arbitration is mandatory, and there is no possibility to start a lawsuit.

      Why is that a problem? Private arbitration is cheaper, faster, and more accessible to people who can't afford a lawyer. By making it mandatory, the cost of drawn out frivolous lawsuits, where most of the settlement goes to the attorneys, isn't pushed onto other customers.

  2. Fuck Alphabet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Uber.

    Burn the motherfuckers down.

  3. Re:Hitler never gassed his own people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and that's Spicer!

  4. Alphabet rights by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    As should be possible to do by any individual who is forced into arbitration, not just huge powerful companies like Alphabet/Google.

  5. Between Uber and Google, so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that Google didn't sign Uber's employment agreement, I don't see why they should have to submit to Uber's arbitration agreement.

    1. Re:Between Uber and Google, so.. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I find it bizarre that they would even try. ..however, because it is actually about the contracts of the former Waymo(google) employees, it might have agreed - just to not reveal their non-compete slavery contracts publicly.

      I mean come on, who would go to work for a company after which you can't work in the same fucking field that you are an expert in? Like a LIDAR expert goes to a different company - the wtf is he supposed to work on expect lidar.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Between Uber and Google, so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, according to google, he took direct copies of quite a bit of code with him. "Working on" autonomous vehicles is one thing. "Theft of significant corporate assets / trade secrets" is another. This isn't just another employment agreement dispute. Sure it's part of it, just nowhere near all of it.

      It took google some significant amounts of time to get a good working prototype. Uber seemed like it took maybe 3 months, shortly after that employee left google. Uber's not _that_ good at auto sensors and code.

    3. Re:Between Uber and Google, so.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      I mean come on, who would go to work for a company after which you can't work in the same fucking field that you are an expert in?

      Non-compete agreements are not enforceable in California. This dispute is not about non-compete agreements. It is about theft of trade secrets.

    4. Re:Between Uber and Google, so.. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the theft is probably also under googles arbitration employee bs. contract.

      file numbers are kind of.. well. irrelevant? whose files? personal notes?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re: Between Uber and Google, so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be but the suit is against uber, not the employee. Google doesn't have that contract with uber so the arbitration clause does not apply.

    6. Re:Between Uber and Google, so.. by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      If you work for any company (or these days, a university) doing technology development, you're required to sign IP assignment agreements.

      A good organization will list the specific IP being held as a trade secret as part of your exit agreement when you leave. The best situation for everyone is clarity and clear ownership of very specific items.

      A bad organization will try to blanket claim everything it can extending past the time of employment. The trick here is, you don't have to sign those agreements. It's all a negotiation. I've worked at places where I did not sign the IP assignment agreement, and while the lawyers hated it, it's their own damn fault for crafting an agreement that was overly broad.

  6. Re: Between Uber and Google, so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not thin the dispute is he is working on lidar. California has a high bar for non-competes. This is about blatantly steeling corporate secrets. Maybe an analogy. If you are in sales and can remember all of your contact you might be good, but if there is a log of you downloading the company client list from sales force the week you quiet that is going to look bad. Say like downloading the company source repository to a usb drive or your personal repo the week you leave. The person has been paid 100s of millions of dollars, so even if a non-compete existed it is not harming his ability to live.

  7. Google is trying to put a stake in Uber's heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google can and does arbitrate cases against other corporations. The reason they are trying to get this case heard in front of a jury (and the reason you should want it heard in front of a jury) is that more of Uber's shady business practices are going to go on public record. If the case is arbitrated then most if not all of the proceedings will be sealed. This is why Uber is coming up with every bullsh*t excuse it can to pull the case into arbitration (even the judge is getting pissed). Beyond the immediate PR problems for Uber, there's every indication that this is going to kill their current self-driving program which the company needs to survive because their current business model is bleeding billions of dollars. If the self-driving program is reset to day one the chances they're going to get any more investor financing after all of the other scandals are zero. If they lose this case it's a death sentence for Uber. Uber knows it, Google knows it. Google's motives for doing this are purely business related but it couldn't have happened to a nicer company *cough*.

  8. Hive of scum and villainy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have the words to describe their chutzpah (no, internet, in spite of what social media may have taught uou, that is not generally considered to be a good quality) and lack of ethics. Once more: why does anyone support these psychopaths?

  9. PS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I refuse to acknowledge 'alphabet'. That is just a name for Google avoiding taxes and monopoly filings. They are the penultimate evil corporation. Our society is mighty stupid.

    1. Re:PS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they aren't even in the top 5 of evil companies, you really need to get out of your basement lair

  10. Weird... by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Google used to run ads for Uber in Google Maps. How long has this law suit been going on for?

    1. Re:Weird... by hackel · · Score: 1

      Used to? They still do. Uber and Lyft just showed up for me yesterday. Google is ultimately an advertising company and I doubt they're going to take them down over this. I'm just pissed because I actually followed on of those initial Uber adverts when it was first added to Maps that offered a $10 or $15 credit on your first ride. Nope. No credit at all. Assholes.

    2. Re:Weird... by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      Weird... I was able to use mine without any problem. I believe you have to use a coupon code in order to get the discounted rate, though.

  11. Should be released as Open Source by hackel · · Score: 1

    All of the code should be released as Open Source. There's no reason I should have to trust my very *life* to proprietary software. Make Uber pay Google for using their software, then force *both* companies to release all of the code and continue development jointly, *in public*. This is the answer.