Waymo's Case Against Uber Sent By Judge To US Prosecutors (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: The judge presiding over Waymo's trade-secrets theft lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. asked federal prosecutors to investigate the claims in the case. U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in Thursday's order he takes no position on whether prosecution is warranted. The specter of a possible prosecution has hung over the case for weeks, ever since the engineer at the center of the dispute, Anthony Levandowski, said he could potentially be the subject of a criminal investigation. Levandowski cited the explosive allegations that he downloaded thousands of proprietary files at the Alphabet Inc. unit before he left. He later joined the ride-hailing giant. Alsup said at a May 3 hearing that Waymo hadn't presented "smoking gun" proof of wrongdoing by Uber even though the evidence strongly suggested that Levandowski downloaded files that Waymo accused him of stealing. The judge's brief order referring case to the U.S. attorney's office made reference to a ruling he issued a few minutes earlier -- sealed from public view -- with a detailed description of evidence.

Comments

Travis Kalanick for jail!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Trade Secret Theft perpetrated on Waymo seems fairly clear. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick established a corporate culture that flouts regulations and crosses lines. They may have crossed a legal line here. Shutting down Uber's autonomous vehicle program effectively curtails their corporate strategy of replacing their driver partners - i.e. cutting out the customer facing folks who deliver the service, carry the capital expenditure costs for vehicles, fuel and operations delivery. This case has already wiped out significant valuation of this privately held company. Now adding criminal charges for trade secret theft could actually hold Uber executives accountable. Uber proved the technology and the model of ridesharing, but their execution will likely turn the rewards over to competitors. Since a lot of the initial investment is Saudi money, I'm not too torn up about it.

Re:Travis Kalanick for jail!

[110010001000]

"established a corporate culture that flouts regulations and crosses lines"

Welcome to Planet Earth.

sealed from public view

[fustakrakich]

Why do we allow this?? Sad!

Re:sealed from public view

[bws111]

From TFA: Alsup said he intends to issue a decision publicly after both sides provide input on which portions should be redacted because they contain sensitive company information.

Re:sealed from public view

[DickBreath]

We allow this because we highly value personal* privacy in the United States.

* corporations are people too**
** some people are more important*** than others.
*** government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations, because you can substitute the word "corporations" for "people".

Hope that helps answer your question. Please stay on the line if you have additional questions. Your call is important to us. Press 0 to talk to a stupid robot driven by a script. Press 1 to be routed to a third world call center. Press and hold the telephone switch hook to leave feedback.

Re:sealed from public view

[fustakrakich]

Unless it's public, "sensitive" information or not, it's a kangaroo court. We allow too much secrecy in the system.

Re:sealed from public view

[Anonymous Coward]

Our established system allows for trade secrets to exist. I guess you're against that?
Since they exist, it doesn't make sense to release them publicly just because a company sues over them.

Re:sealed from public view

[rgmoore]

The whole point of the lawsuit is about one company stealing proprietary information from another. We undo the whole purpose of the suit if the court turns around and allows that information to leak out by making absolutely everything about the case public.

Re:sealed from public view

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a civil case which reduces the burden of disclosure. If a criminal case moves forward, much more information enters the public record.

Re:sealed from public view

[Anubis IV]

Unless it's public, "sensitive" information or not, it's a kangaroo court. We allow too much secrecy in the system.

Perhaps we do, but this isn't one of those cases. Private entities are entitled to their privacy. The notion that they should be forced to give up their privacy in order to protect it from being violated is utterly and completely asinine.

But it gets even worse, since the system you're advocating for (i.e. one with public disclosure of all case details) lends itself to trivial forms of abuse. Imagine if any lawsuit at all, regardless of its merit, was sufficient to compel the public disclosure of trade secrets. Never mind that Coca-Cola was in business selling their classic drink long before you were born, if you sued them in court, they'd apparently need to publicly disclose the formula according to you, otherwise it would just be a kangaroo court?

What about more personal civil matters? If your wife were to cite something that's considered grossly indecent as the reason she's filing for divorce, would you honestly suggest she should be compelled to air your dirty laundry in public? I'd wager you'd recognize the value of private proceedings fairly quickly, were something like that to happen.

The reasons we allow private individuals to have privacy don't suddenly disappear when one of them has a grievance against the other. There are situations where public disclosure is indeed the proper course of actions, but that's a matter that's best left up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.

Re:sealed from public view

[AvitarX]

Currently there isn't even a trial I think.

Judges make rulings on sealed documents all of the time, until it's evidence for a determination of fact it can pretty readily be sealed.

Currently it's being looked at from the perspective of matters of law, not fact (I think, I'm not following it closely), unless this ruling is being used for setting future precedent, there's really no reason to show the evidence, the ruling will describe it well enough.

The two parties could still settle even, in which case it isn't really a court decision at all, kangaroo or not.

Re:sealed from public view

[tsqr]

When they use taxpayer money we have a right to know the details.

You state that as if it were a fact, when it's really just your opinion. I'm a little fuzzy on the fine details, though, so I'd like to hear more.

Do we have a right to know the medical details of everyone whose health insurance is subsidised under the ACA? Medicaid? Medicare? Workers Compensation? Do we have a right to know the financial details of everyone who receives Social Security? Unemployment compensation? Food stamps? Do we have the right to know the driving record of everyone who uses public roads?

Please tell us how much we have a right to know about your personal life because your local government provides police, fire, and other emergency services, or because your kids attend public schools, or because you jog on public sidewalks, or because you occasionally use a public park, or because you use government regulated utilities.

Re:sealed from public view

[stabiesoft]

Here is the thing, if uber has source code taken from google/waymo, do you really think it is ok to post the two files (exhibit A waymo file, exhibit B google) to the public and thereby disclose to everyone the source code when was stolen? I've been involved in exactly this type of litigation and the court uses extremely careful handling of the property.

Re:sealed from public view

[Anubis IV]

Then they should settle privately, out of court. When they use taxpayer money we have a right to know the details.

A) If a person can't turn to the courts to protect their rights, those rights don't exist.

B) No, you do not have the right to know every detail about how your tax dollars are being spent. Democracies are built on the bond of trust between the people and their government, so transparency is generally in everyone's best interests, but that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to know every detail. There needs to be room for discretion, whether we're talking about confidential intelligence, stolen trade secrets, or body cam footage from officers who found you having sex when they broke down the wrong door.

C) Your workaround doesn't work. Without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, there's no incentive for the violator to settle with the victim. Perhaps in the utopian society you think we live in, everyone acknowledges the error in their ways and seeks to make amends that are equitable and fair, but here in the real world that doesn't happen unless someone makes them, which is the exact reason we have courts.

Re:sealed from public view

[kqs]

Without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, there's no incentive for the violator to settle with the victim.

More to the point, without a justice system compelling everyone to play by the rules, we end up with "might makes right". This has been shown again and again to be a terrible system.

One reason we pay taxes is so that when a stronger entity tries to bully a weaker entity, the justice system will come in and resolve the situation according to rules we have agreed on. It's very imperfect, but it's still better than anything else we've tried. And in this case it seems to be working well enough.

I agree that we should usually err on the side of releasing information, but this seems a case where releasing all the documents would just exacerbate the harm done to Waymo.

Re:I find them both GUILTY!

[slashdice]

They need to merge. That way they could be way mo' uber.

Re:I find them both GUILTY!

[DickBreath]

Yeah, it is utterly ridiculous to have names like: Xerox, Apple, Microsoft, Google, DuPont, Monsanto, Cisco, Unisys, Verizon, Atari, Astra Zenica, Analtech.

Those names only sound okay because you've become accustomed to them. They should all be strung up from the highest street pole for thinking up such names. Get the torches and pitchforks!

Re:Hate for Uber

[parkinglot777]

Well, if you get caught red handed, then it could be different. Also, if your business goes against another big business, then it is all depended on how big your wallet against the opponent. Though, this news is not new... Don't know why they keep repeating the same thing over and over again on here. So redundant news...

Re:Hate for Uber

[110010001000]

"They said they were going to revolutionize the way transportation and cars are used"

They did, and still are doing this. So you hate them because of some VC valuation?

Re:Hate for Uber

[drinkypoo]

I don't get the hate for Uber.

Some people hate anyone that "breaks the rules", that's part of it. Other people hate them because they are sleazy from stem to stern.

Re:Hate for Uber

[yodleboy]

"That applies to most of the companies that you buy products and services from every day"

So because 'everyone' is doing it, we should just turn a blind eye? Just lay back and think of England? Come on... Everyone is not doing it, and when it's particularly egregious like Uber, we should drop the hammer. Uber ignores the laws it doesn't agree with, until confronted, then backs off a little if it looks like they won't win. As slowly as the wheels of justice turn, they get to rake in millions of dollars in profit before having to adjust their practices. Up until now, they've gotten away with it, but the Waymo debacle has gotten them in wayyyyy over their heads. "Oops, we won't do it again" isn't going to work this time.

Re:Hate for Uber

[TechyImmigrant]

I don't like Uber much mostly due to the socially awkward tipping thing, but I hate traditional taxis a lot more. Uber just brings the hate to Slashdot. So yes, I use Lyft.

Why??

[FrankHaynes]

Waymo's Case Against Uber Sent By Judge To US Prosecutors

Why would a judge send an Uber to U.S. prosecutors?? Don't lawyers make enough money to hire their own chauffeurs?

Re:Why??

[ytene]

This specific case, i.e. "Waymo vs. Uber", is a Civil Case, being tried under Civil Law. That is to say, it is a legal dispute between two entities.

What the Judge has done in this case is to take some of the evidence collected during the Civil Case and sent it for consideration as evidence of Criminal wrong-doing.

This does not in any way imply that criminal activities have, in fact, taken place, only that this Judge believes that may possibly be the case.

Now, if you think about the specifics of this case so far, what we have here is Waymo accusing Uber, which is relevant to this development because at no point has Uber actually filed a counter-claim against Waymo - they are merely "defending". What this means is one of two things: either the Judge believes that Waymo's actions whilst acting as plaintiffs includes criminal wrong-doing, or that the Judge has seen enough evidence provided by Uber to suggest that *they* may have been guilty of criminal wrong-doing.

Whilst the US and many other countries have a single Justice System, the US essentially has two different Standards under which that Justice is judge: Criminal and Civil. Typically Criminal Law requires a "higher bar" - that is that a criminal case has to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", whilst with a Civil case, a judgement can be made based on "the preponderance of the evidence" [the balance of the evidence].

I am not a lawyer, but I've followed court cases with keen interest ever since Pamela Jones launched Groklaw. Based on my extremely limited and entirely non-professional opinion [translation: I do not know what I am talking about] I'd infer that this doesn't bode well for Uber. However, given that the Judge filed under seal, we are unlikely to understand the true ramifications of this unless the AG decides to pick up this case and prosecute.

Fascinating all the same...

Re:Why??

[FrankHaynes]

[translation: I do not know what I am talking about]

I concur in the strongest terms!

Re:Hate for Uber

[gnasher719]

As slowly as the wheels of justice turn, they get to rake in millions of dollars in profit before having to adjust their practices.

You are almost completely right in your post, except for the "millions of dollars in profit". At the moment all the manage to do is having billions of dollars in losses.

Crime doesn't pay. At least not always. At least not for Uber.

Re:Hate for Uber

[marquisdepolis]

Ah the age old "everyone's bad so why complain" argument. First of all, there are shades of wrong - it's not a binary decision of whether something is good or bad, and you get to choose where you draw the line. Secondly, there are two ways to fix things - 1) Voice, where you voice your displeasure, and 2) Exit, where you choose to use another service. They're both valid options of complaining, and there's no reason to choose one over the other as if it's the only way to be.

Re:Hate for Uber

[tsqr]

"They said they were going to revolutionize the way transportation and cars are used" They did, and still are doing this. So you hate them because of some VC valuation?

Some revolution. They're a taxi service. Having an app doesn't make it revolutionary. Reminds me of the "[do something commonplace] ON A COMPUTER" patent approach.

Re:I find them both GUILTY!

[DickBreath]

Thank you for pointing that out.