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...
Usually the people who end up on juries tend to be exactly the kind of people who can't get out of jury duty. I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers from both sides excluded anyone who has used Uber, let alone knows anything about them beyond that they're sort of some kind of taxi service. This is just another case that's going to drag out for weeks or months before becoming inconclusive and it doesn't matter what happens since it will be the first of many appeals.
Most likely they found a jury that is not familiar with Uber's lack of ethics, and that is as it should be. Uber should be tried for this particular crime, whether or not they are unethical in general.
"He looks like a bad guy so he's probably guilty" turns out to be a really bad way to run a courtroom.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
because they have waymo' dollars and lawyers than Uber does.
I disagree in this case. Intent is an important element of crime, and their previous "lack of ethics" should be a factor in considering intent.
A dingo ate my sig...
I would imagine that anyone who knows anything about Uber has been excluded from the jury. Moreover, the evidence of Uber's numerous (alleged) indiscretions probably won't be given to the jury unless it is somehow directly relevant to the case.
Nonetheless, I reckon I'd rather be a Waymo lawyer than an Uber lawyer. I don't think trying to defend Uber in this case is going to be much fun.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
their previous "lack of ethics" should be a factor in considering intent.
I don't think that's how it works: "Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ru...
Agreed, but the Waymo guys have to decide that's relevant and then educate the jury. (They get to do this while Uber shouts "Fake News" over and over in the background.)
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
While this is an interesting scenario, I bet the dollar amount of the custody battle was far, far less than what is at stake in this trial. The lawyers on both sides have a very strong incentive to make sure that the jurors know as little as possible about the details so they cannot be prejudiced.