Slashdot Mirror


Waymo Wants Uber to Pay $2.6 Billion Over Alleged Trade Secret Theft (reuters.com)

Alphabet's Waymo unit is seeking about $2.6 billion from Uber for the alleged theft of one of several trade secrets in a lawsuit over self-driving cars, a lawyer for Uber said on Wednesday. From a report: Uber attorney Bill Carmody disclosed the figure in a hearing in federal court in San Francisco, where both companies are discussing whether a trial in the case will begin next month. Waymo has asserted claims that Uber stole several of its trade secrets. The total amount of Waymo's damages request was not publicly disclosed at the hearing on Wednesday. Waymo claimed in a lawsuit earlier this year that former engineer Anthony Levandowski downloaded more than 14,000 confidential files before leaving to set up a self-driving truck company, which Uber acquired soon after.

25 comments

  1. A reasonable number given the content by CustomBuild · · Score: 1

    If the documents were actually stolen and the damages can be proven, it's a reasonable amount. We are talking about an entirely new field of commerce, which has yet to produce a single product. At this stage, a theft of self-driving research material could easily be valued in the billions.

    1. Re:A reasonable number given the content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $2.6 Billion for a field that isn't actually legal anywhere yet?
      For a product that doesn't actually exist?

      They'll have a hell of a time showing damages to that extent when there is ZERO market right now. Remember, you can't count damages that will occur in the future AFTER Uber has already been prevented from further use of these "trade secrets".

    2. Re:A reasonable number given the content by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Neither party is involved in the engineering of self-driving cars, so I'm highly skeptical of that assessment. Might as well be written on the back of a napkin.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:A reasonable number given the content by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      $2.6 Billion for a field that isn't actually legal anywhere yet?

      It is legal in many places so long as a person is in the driver's seat, but that person doesn't have to actually have their hands on the wheel or any feet on any pedals. It's for testing purposes while the technology matures well enough to be used by consumers.

      For a product that doesn't actually exist?

      Very much so, especially for a product that is likely to have implications for the economy in a range approaching (or perhaps exceeding) a trillion dollars. For $2.8 billion, Uber would be getting off easy if they were to compete with Google very quickly after the technology debuts, using years of very expensive research and development IP stolen from Google. If I were Google, I'd also be demanding a judgement that Uber cannot be in the self-driving business for at least 20 years, and that their existing self-driving technology cannot be sold or otherwise transfered to a third party, even if Uber goes bankrupt and its assets have to be sold off.

  2. pocket change by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Uber's had $11billion worth of funding so far, and they're leaking money like a leaky lawyer, but they should be able to survive with that money lost (of course they are absolutely losing this lawsuit).

    Still, waste a billion here and a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money. Waymo than I have.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:pocket change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do note that the $2.6B is for one of several trade secrets. This suggests Waymo have given the values of others. If you add 'em up, what does that look like compared to $11B?

  3. Google invests in Lyft. Wants to kill Uber. Shock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Google is in talks to invest $1 Billion in Lyft. Wouldn't it be convenient if Lyft's primary competitor had a stranglehold put on their capital?

  4. Worth far more. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    The amount of time and talent required to develop that technology before all of it's competitors is worth far more than $2.6B if Uber can release a product or service within the same year as Waymo. Frankly, this technology is worth hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. All of Uber's financing and assets should have been excoriated from them in their entirety. I hope I'm not underselling just how large an impact this technology is going to have. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Worth far more. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      By the time you factor in Uber's debt load, in technical terms, Uber has no assets; the bank has their assets. How this balloon hasn't completely deflated yet is beyond me.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Worth far more. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Because $6.5 billion in annual revenue is impressive enough to keep investors engaged.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Worth far more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of time and talent required to develop that technology before all of it's competitors is worth far more than $2.6B

      Maybe it's because I undervalue myself as a technician - but - while it does take time to learn what you're doing (programming, vector calculus, etc) there is no talent required. The only thing required is the desire, and ability, to describe and solve a problem (mathematically). Computer Vision has been in use, in one way or another, for a very long time. It crossing over into robotics was no miracle. It being used commercially is also no miracle. They are all just "another step added to an existant ladder"

    4. Re:Worth far more. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Because no one will want to drive themselves once this tech matures? People always get what they want and technology merely supplements, not replaces people.

    5. Re: Worth far more. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Also, do they even get funding from banks, or is it all from venture capitalists and individuals?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re: Worth far more. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Huh. I would have guessed it was entirely VCs, but apparently they've been getting funding lately from banks, including Morgan Stanley and Softbank. My guess is they were able to get better terms from the banks? An alternate explanation is that they were planning on going public soon, I guess.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: Worth far more. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      With all their scandals, with them hemorrhaging (that's surprisingly more difficult to spell than it should be) cash, and with their impending lawsuits and maybe even criminal charges - who the fuck is gonna buy into their IPO? Maybe the banks are smarter than I am, I'll grant that easily. But, I just can't see myself loaning them money.

      Their revenue is pretty impressive, but they've never turned a profit. Compounded with the additional risk factors (like those lawsuits and maybe even criminal liability), I'm pretty sure I'd have better luck loaning money to a homeless meth addict. Hell, I'd probably get a better value for my dollar by loaning it to a homeless meth addict.

      Though, I'm pretty sure the banks are smarter than I am - and have access to financial information that I don't have.

      As a lark, if they do IPO, I should invest a small amount and then write about how it performs. I got in on Tesla fairly early on, though I invested a larger sum than I'm willing to risk on Uber. With Tesla, I got in at ~24/share. That's done very, very well for me - I still own the shares. However, I wish I'd written more about it. I only made Slashdot posts and, maybe, a couple of posts on Fark.

      Hmm... If they IPO, I'll invest $1000 to $5000 and write about the results. It seems like it might be interesting. Well, I'll consider it - that's more accurate. I may change my mind.

      By the way, there was a not-too-distant change in the laws that allow a regular citizen to legally fund startups via venture capital, with some caveats of course. I think it might be limited to just $2000/year but it might be higher and it might be worth looking into, assuming the startup bubble doesn't pop. They say that 1:10 turns a profit. It might be an interesting gamble. I'm not sure that I'd call it investing, so I'll stick with calling it gambling.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re: Worth far more. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Their revenue is pretty impressive, but they've never turned a profit.

      Yeah, to really invest money in them, I'd have to look through their books, and figure out what things can be cut. The real question is, "If they decided to cut advertising/promotion/expansion costs, could they turn a profit today?" Amazon rarely turns a profit, but whenever investors get too jittery, like magic, the next quarter Amazon turns a profit.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. How bubbles burst by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Expect the balloon to rupture at 3,000 feet, killing everyone on board.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  6. "You wouldn't download a car..." by ToTheStars · · Score: 1

    At $185K per file, I'm reminded of the Music and Film Industry Associations of America... ;)

  7. Re: Google invests in Lyft. Wants to kill Uber. Sh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, please can we stop participating in this deception that it's not Google? I swear this whole Alphabet thing is nothing more than an attempt to hide the unsavory shit and protect from liabilities. Anyone who plays along is complicit

  8. Or absolute zero. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    We are talking about an entirely new field of commerce, which has yet to produce a single product. At this stage, a theft of self-driving research material could easily be valued in the billions.

    Or a more cynical person could easily valuate the whole story to exactly ZERO dollars.

    (You know, with the entire new field still needing yet to show capability to produce at least one single functional product, one could easily classify the whole thing as "science fiction / fantasy")

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  9. Waymo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to train my replacement from Waymo. He was stupid. Didn't know how to use a toilet.

  10. Intellectual "property" and trade secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem here is that we even have intellectual "property" and trade secrets. There is certainly value in knowledge, but the idea that one person can have exclusive control or knowledge is just disturbing. A free world is dependent on the free exchange of knowledge and communication. As a business owner I understand everyone’s wants to get an advantage, secure a market for themselves, and gain from returns on investments.

    However these things also come at a very high price when you start to consider what all this means. It means reduced competition, increased work for less, a compromised democracy where we're not actually free to communicate for fear of reprisals if we say or communicate the wrong thing. And none of these laws event prevent "trade secrets" from being ferried out. We have serious espionage problems involving other countries we don't even control-like China and Russia.

    I think a better way would be to revert to systems dating back to the founding of the United States. Before the United States had practically indefinite copy"right" (limited to 7 years initially and was suppose to be for the benefit of arts and sciences for the people, not private corporations, nor an elite that we have today) and before the United States had a position in the world we had competition. We borrowed what we needed and advanced at breakneck speeds. A world that copies is a world that advances faster. It's a world that isn't stagnant.

    I'm not a socialist, but rather a principled libertarian, and think free trade and a free people trumps "security" and boarder walls/guards. America can compete, we have advantages, we can adapt to change, but we need to get rid of the barriers and inefficiencies and implement freedom of travel for EVERYONE (not just corporations) and freedom of communication, not just pretend like we have it. There should be no restrictions on peoples travel (drivers licenses, license plates, vehicular registration, passports, etc) or communications (ie copy"right", patents, etc). The socialist policies are what hold the world back- and what we have today- as much as we want to help the poor doing so on a massive scale via government results in economic collapse of economies and inhibits free trade and reduces competition. You can't let in every poor person and then implement a system that pays them to be there whether they are contributing to society or not. Socialism works when it's charitable and particularly at the smaller scale (families). For everything else there is charity. Something Americans used to be known for.

    1. Re: Intellectual "property" and trade secrets by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Alright, what is your real name, primary email address, and password for that email address?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. It doesn't hurt to ask by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    This is America and suing folks for ludicrous amounts of money is -- along with professional football -- our national sport. So, sure -- $2.6B.

    I do wonder where they expect Uber -- which looks to be headed for Chapter 11(?) bankruptcy at flank speed -- would come up with $2.60. Much less $2.6B. But maybe that's the point. Raise Uber to the ground and sow the soil with salt. That'll teach the bastards not to mess with Waymo's IP.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey