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

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

[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

[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: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

[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

[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.