Waymo Clarifies It Actually Wants $1.8 Billion From Uber (techcrunch.com)

Last week, a lawyer for Uber said Waymo was seeking about $2.6 billion from the company for the alleged theft of one of several trade secrets in a lawsuit over self-driving cars. Over the weekend, Waymo filed a document with the court noting that the correct figure was actually $1.859 billion. TechCrunch reports: It's not clear why this seemingly important detail was left uncorrected for nearly a week. The filing also includes some additional clarification around the way in which the damages figure was calculated. Though Waymo is arguing that nine trade secrets were put in jeopardy by Anthony Levandowski, it is seeking a maximum of $1.8 billion in damages. That figure is the value that Waymo is attributing to a single trade secret -- trade secret 25. The other eight secrets are being individually valued at less than $1.8 billion. Consequently, Waymo is capping the damages at the value of its most valuable compromised trade secret. Waymo's attorneys note that the $1.8 billion figure was calculated based on an estimate of "Uber's unjust enrichment from Uber's trade secret misappropriation." Waymo continues that the damages are based on Uber's own profitability forecasts of deploying autonomous vehicles into its ridesharing business.

Comments

Normally I hate Patent Trolls

[DaMattster]

This time I will make an exception. Go get 'em, Waymo!

Re:Normally I hate Patent Trolls

[Martin Blank]

Waymo isn't a patent troll, though, as they're not an NPE (non-practicing entity). They're doing active research, pushing the field, and have put cars on the road to various degrees. They're not ready to sell systems, but merely suing over an allegedly stolen patent doesn't make them a patent troll.

Re:Normally I hate Patent Trolls

[ShanghaiBill]

Also, this isn't about patents. This is about trade secrets.

Personal opinion: If you want to protect your ideas you should patent them. That is the rationale for the existence of patents - to encourage people to publish their ideas in return for a period of exclusivity. If you don't use the patent system, and instead try to keep your ideas secret, then you shouldn't be able to sue someone if they leak. The courts should not be in the business of enforcing private secrets to the detriment of the public interest.

Re:Normally I hate Patent Trolls

[xQx]

The problem with a patent is you need to tell everyone what you're doing, and how you've achieved it.

Then you're at the mercy of the system to make sure what you patented was novel enough to be afforded protection, and if knowing how you got it working one way makes it easier for people to achieve the same result using a different method, you've just given your competition a leg up.

Also - as Elon Musk said - when you're competition includes foreign governments, US Patents aren't much use.

There are legitimate reasons to rely on trade secrets.

Re:Normally I hate Patent Trolls

[Martin Blank]

The courts should not be in the business of enforcing private secrets to the detriment of the public interest.

I agree with you somewhat, but the courts should be in the business of enforcing contracts, though--that's one of their most basic functions, and what most civil law is based on, whether that contract is express or implied. When a third party profits from the violation of an agreement between two parties, the courts have a role in determining if the violation was facilitated by the third party directly (extremely serious), indirectly (less serious), or not at all (still worrisome). Without enforcement against the third parties, the risk to employees wanting to take the result of hard work and serious investment and go to another company is almost nil. Sure, they might be sued for the value of the trade secret in terms of lost sales, but the other company could fully indemnify them for it.

Further, while trade secrets are commonly associated with big business (like recipes for Coca-Cola and KFC chicken), they also provide powerful protection for small companies that might otherwise be stolen out of existence by larger companies. A large competitor able to outspend a small one on grabbing trade secrets in deals with employees without repercussion from the courts could easily establish a monopoly. Given the rapid shifts from one administration to the next pertaining to antitrust law, waiting for the government to step in to break up the trust is a fool's errand. Hence, the value of trade secret protection built into the law.

Waymo!

[micsaund]

That's definitely Waymo money!

Re:Waymo!

[SeaFox]

That's definitely Waymo money!

$1.859 bil this week > $2.6 bil last week?

Okay, man. Don't quit your day job.

Re:WTF

[cheesybagel]

IP ~= Copyights + Trademarks + Patents + Trade secrets + whatever.

That's why people like RMS don't like using the moniker IP to describe something. These things have neither the same rules, nor the same purpose.

A "trade secret" is usually something like the "secret sauce" used to make something. Like say the recipe for Coca-Cola.

Re:WTF

[darkain]

One of the simplest examples: the Microsoft Windows source code. This is a "trade secret" (or rather, a very large trove of trade secrets all bundled together). There is the publicly known APIs, but then the actual implementation behind the scenes is the trade secret part.

Re:WTF

[HornWumpus]

Trade secrets never expire. If they become 'not secret', that doesn't affect them. The act of making them 'not secret' is a crime.

For example: Kentucky Fried Rat's 11 herbs and spices is actually 7 seas Italian dressing mix, powdered in a blender than added to the breading. If I could prove that, they'd be here trying to take down the post. As it is, they ignore it, knowing they don't want to attract attention to it.

Referencing the sib. Doesn't matter that anybody who wants can find complete source for obsolete windows 2000. It's still legally a 'trade secret'.

Trade secrets are BETTER than trademarks, patents or copyrights. But are generally only useful to the most influential, deep pocket companies. The kind that own a senator or ten.

Re:WTF

[slimjim8094]

If you *steal* the secret it's a crime, but if you reverse-engineer it correctly they have no recourse. That's the whole point of patents, actually - if you want to keep people from using your invention, you have to publish it and you get a time-limited exclusive right to the idea. That's the cherry to get people to release their invention for everyone's (eventual) benefit. If you don't want anybody else to have it ever - well you just have to keep it secret and hope nobody figures it out, because if they do you're out of luck.

Re:WTF

[HornWumpus]

For powerful companies, having the secret in your possession is de facto evidence you 'stole it'.

IIRC there is a copy of the Coca Cola recipe floating around in the originators family. They can't sell it or use it. Because lawyers.

I didn't steal the Win 2000 source. But I have a copy. Do you think that makes it 'not secret'?

Re:WTF

[xQx]

I didn't steal the Win 2000 source. But I have a copy. Do you think that makes it 'not secret'?

Yes, no longer a secret.

But I think it's still copyrighted - so an offence to have and distribute.

(IANA, laws differ between jurisdictions)

Re:WTF

[Martin Blank]

It's also protected by copyright. It doesn't have the same protections as registered copyright, but it had copyright the moment it was created.

Re:WTF

[TheRaven64]

That's why people like RMS don't like using the moniker IP to describe something

That's one of the reasons. The other is that using the term intellectual property implicitly accepts the idea that it makes sense to treat ideas as a form of property. (Good) Ideas are difficult to create, yet are free to copy, so this model isn't a very good fit and leads to all sorts of weird economic effects when you try. Imagine if Henry Ford had decided to give away cars for free, but to charge a lot for painting them and lobbied the government to require Ford paint on a car before it could be driven on the road. That's the situation we're currently in with most copyrighted goods: the producers do the expensive bit (creating the original) for free and then charge people for the trivial bit (making copies), and by using the term intellectual property, you're implicitly accepting that this is a model that makes sense.

Re:WTF

[HornWumpus]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure there is precedent. Being widely published does not make a trade secret 'not secret'.