Slashdot Mirror
What We Learned From Day 1 of the Uber and Alphabet Trial (arstechnica.com)
Recode highlights the presentations each side gave on Day 1 in the Waymo v. Uber trial: Alphabet's self-driving arm, Waymo, and Uber gave their opening statements in front of a jury on Monday, commencing the courtroom phase of what has already been a messy legal battle. The day was entirely about opening arguments, but both Uber's and Waymo's strategy centers largely on one thing: Our opponent stooped to the levels they did because they were afraid we would beat them. Uber claims Waymo's lawsuit is baseless and is only suing because they were upset they were losing top talent at a time when competing companies began gaining ground. Waymo claims Uber was worried about getting beat in the self-driving car race so it stole Waymo's trade secrets when it hired one of its former executives. If Uber loses the case, it could have to pay out millions of dollars in damages and potentially stall its self-driving efforts. For Waymo, losing the case will have largely reputational risks. Alphabet rarely, if ever, sues over any issues with people or other companies, which means this litigation carries a lot of weight.
Uber as the defense doesn't have to prove anything, just cast enough doubt on Waymo's claims. Waymo has to prove both motivation on the part of Uber to intentionally steal trade secrets, and that the information Uber stole was proprietary. "That was quite the story," Uber attorney Bill Carmody said in his opening statement. "I want to tell you right up front. It didn't happen, there's no conspiracy, there's no cheating, period end of story." It'll be up to the jury to determine if Waymo has presented enough evidence to prove that not only did Uber steal trade secrets, that the company was using them in their current self-driving technology. Painting Waymo as a company that was growing increasingly concerned over losing top engineers to Uber -- in addition to harboring personal grievances against Levandowski -- could help the ride-hail company convince the jury that Waymo had ulterior motives with its lawsuit. Recode has a detailed list in their report of all the evidence Uber and Waymo presented against one another, as well as their strategies going forward.
Uber as the defense doesn't have to prove anything, just cast enough doubt on Waymo's claims. Waymo has to prove both motivation on the part of Uber to intentionally steal trade secrets, and that the information Uber stole was proprietary. "That was quite the story," Uber attorney Bill Carmody said in his opening statement. "I want to tell you right up front. It didn't happen, there's no conspiracy, there's no cheating, period end of story." It'll be up to the jury to determine if Waymo has presented enough evidence to prove that not only did Uber steal trade secrets, that the company was using them in their current self-driving technology. Painting Waymo as a company that was growing increasingly concerned over losing top engineers to Uber -- in addition to harboring personal grievances against Levandowski -- could help the ride-hail company convince the jury that Waymo had ulterior motives with its lawsuit. Recode has a detailed list in their report of all the evidence Uber and Waymo presented against one another, as well as their strategies going forward.
Uber is a criminal organization, as has been shown time and time again by their premeditated illegal actions. They get caught and do the "Aw shucks oopsie ya got us" routine, pay a fine, and then go on to do it again.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Painting Waymo as a company that was growing increasingly concerned over losing top engineers to Uber -- in addition to harboring personal grievances against Levandowski -- could help the ride-hail company convince the jury that Waymo had ulterior motives with its lawsuit.
Uber painting anyone as anything is going to be difficult with a jury that's at all familiar with Uber's lack of ethics.
because they have waymo' dollars and lawyers than Uber does.
Opening statements are just the stories the lawyers make up to try to convince the children (jury) to think and act the way they want them to. Sometimes the story is intended to be clear and straightforward, and sometimes it is meant to distract, misdirect, or confuse. But even juries that are clueless about details of the core of the lawsuit tend to be able to tell who is telling the truth, and who is lying. Uber may not need to prove anything, but they are far less likely to be able to pass the telling of the whole truth part, and the side that lies (the most) tends to lose the case (juries really dislike lairs).
Uber is going DOWN DOWN DOWN. Their history as Class "A" Douche Bags seals the deal even before the trial.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
How did google get Uber's emails? Did they use gmail?
Not the sharpest move, I'd say. Considering what they were scheduling.
No sig