Alphabet adds patent claim to Uber intellectual property theft lawsuit
reuters.com
reuters.com
It is very important that automation be generally available as open source and not restricted by patents, because it might accentuate the migration of capital to the top 1%. We need to empower the 99% as well, as owners of automation, not simple clients of Google and the likes.
Most AI tools are open source. Datasets as well, at least the research ones. 3D printers and CNC might help with making robot bodies.
Important bits:
injunction page 23 line 12-14: Waymo is not seeking to enjoin Defendants from pursuing self driving cars in toto. Waymo merely asks that Defendants not be allowed to use Waymos trade secrets in doing so.
Page 24 8-9: Moreover, Defendants would be free to use non-infringing alternative components in their business, such as the same third-party LiDAR system that they had previously used before switching to Waymos patented technology.
(Fun fact) From the Gary Brown testimony, page 4 lines 6-8 (Paraphrasing) The "database" was an SVN server, and the specialty software installed was TortoiseSVN.
I was under the impression that trade secrets were explicitly not legally protected, and the entire point of a patent was that you publicly document your invention, in exchange for legal protection.
The real issue is that the guy "stole" the trade secrets and gave them to another company. No doubt he signed an employment contract with Google saying he couldn't do that.
He might steal half a billion dollars worth of technology, be found out, and still get away scott free.
Are these trade secrets related to the patents? And if so, is Google risking having their patents invalidated by admitting they left out the best mode?
https://www.fredlaw.com/news__media/2014/01/13/521/aias_elim...
=====
In 2011, Congress passed sweeping patent law legislation, called the America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA changed many aspects of U.S. patent law, including the consequences of failing to disclose in your patent application the “best mode” you are aware of for practicing the invention. Traditionally, if you failed to disclose the best mode in your patent application, then that could be grounds for invalidating the resulting patent. The AIA changed this; no longer can patents be invalidated for failing to include the best mode. The AIA, however, did not change the basic legal requirement that inventors and patent applicants must disclose the best mode in their patent applications. In effect, the AIA left untouched the best mode requirement, but eliminated the punishment, or at least the main punishment, for failing to comply with the requirement.
He called 911, and, because there was a fire station like half a block away, the medics were on scene immediately, and the police shortly after. The policewoman who took his statement thanked him when she was done with that, and said, "Now, if you'll excuse me, sir, I'm going to go write her a ticket."
He responded, "Do you have to? She's already had a bad enough day."
She stopped, looked him in the eye for an uncomfortably long moment, and said, "Sir, you want me to write her this ticket..."
Examples of each:
- patent: Dyson's patent on their vacuum cleaner technology
- trade secret: The formulation of Coca Cola
So no, they are not related at all, and this does not risk Google having their patents invalidated.
My point was that if their trade secret is also the best mode for the patent, then seemingly that puts them at risk for violating the best mode requirement and having their patents revoked, depending on when they were filed.
Patent law is not always the most intuitive thing and it works in ways that tech people usually do not readily comprehend because to them many things are 'obvious' that are not obvious to a patent examiner or someone 'skilled in the art'.
And many times the software people are right (especially when it comes to software), and just as many times they are wrong or simply confused by the jargon surrounding patents.
The 'best mode' is not a requirement for a patent at all, you either have something patentable, or you do not. If it stands the test of time (other paying their license fees, you winning court cases against parties infringing) then it was a strong patent. If you come up with a better mode later on that's fine and need not be disclosed.
Whether or not a patent was the very best patent that you could have taken out is - as far as I know - not of any material impact to your chances of winning such cases.
But what I do know is this: in some places breaking NDA's and spreading trade secrets around is a very dumb thing to do so if Google can make that claim stick the other party has a serious extra problem.
The patents will be dealt with on their own, regardless of any 'modes'.
Ideally this should all be disclosed, including future improvements but it's been a long time since patents were used for their original intended purpose anyway, these days it is probably best to think of them as weaponized IP.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what a patent is intended for? An inventor discloses how the invention works, and is given a monopoly in exchange. If the patent doesn't give the details of how something works, then why should society pay the inventor for it by granting a monopoly over it?
Yes, in theory all the (critical) details are there but in practice this only works in simpler, for instance mostly mechanical patents.
Patents that are broader, for instance to patent some principle may give an illustration and enough info that if you're skilled in the art that you may re-implement it but you're definitely not going to get working schematics and blueprints to work off.
The situation is a bit better than with most scientific papers but not that much better.
[0]: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1701443/USD670286S1.pdf
Disclosing the best mode in the specification of an application is a requirement, pre-AIA and now: see MPEP 2165.
So, since 2012 this is now a requirement.
I've found two examples of this successfully used in litigation, they are referenced here:
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2165.html
Bottom of the page, neither of those come close to Google not disclosing certain parameters.
It was a requirement before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which is what is meant by "pre-AIA". You stated that "'best mode' is not a requirement for a patent at all" which was incorrect pre-AIA and remains incorrect in the AIA era. Disclosure of best mode remains a statutory requirement, even though it now lacks enforcement.
Your citation is of MPEP 2165, which is what I had referenced earlier. Thank you for sharing a direct link for others to review.
The patent describes the method of using Lidar in the context of a self-driving car.
The trade secret details which frequency/frequencies of light are most effective, perhaps including which work better under what kinds of inclement conditions.
In a suit, at least, they can compel discovery and demand accurate testimony.
"Ya know that uber design which is the same as ours? Mind accidentally CC'ing johnsmith@google.com instead of johnsmith@uber.com? Since johnsmith used to work for google, it would be an honest mistake, and would give us the evidence we need to take this to court"
You can't act as they have and not have hordes of enemies!
Best practices are not 9.7 gigs of data, designs, and calculations.
Edit: I am assuming that the 9.7 gigs was data, designs and calculations. Could have been the best cat pictures ever. I just don't know.
You are expected to distinguish between public-domain knowledge and company-confidential information. Public-domain knowledge includes knowledge that you can (legally) obtain without being a part of the company, that you had from before you joined the company (without being under an NDA), that the company chooses to disclose to the public itself like by publishing papers, etc.
At a new company, you can as such freely describe published patents (i.e., those accessible publicly, whether approved yet or not) from the previous company, however, you or your new company are not expected to be violating any approved patents. It generally helps to not even disclose those inventions at the new company.
"Best practices" are generally not confidential information belonging to a company, though that could theoretically be if they involve patentable inventions or trade secrets. Likewise, you are not expected to be taking out any documents on these best practices subject to copyrights.
However, in the more general case, it probably depends in part on what sort of agreements you've signed. It's also one of the reasons why non-competes do exist and are enforced in many places. As you suggest, if you're a project lead for $FOO technology at Company A and you jump to Company B which wants to get in the $FOO business, the reality is that you're being hired only because you're familiar with what Company A is doing and has learned about $FOO.
You may not hold a meeting and do a brain dump of everything you know about what you learned while at Company A (which might well violate employment contracts and would generally be unethical) but you'll absolutely be transferring knowledge. Of course, this happens all the time at some level when people move between companies.
Some of our goals are in conflict, and the answer is not always to come down on the side of one of these goals, but seek some compromise that tries to get the best of both worlds.
But this case seems much closer to a clear case of theft, rather than corporate legal overreach.
But California does have trade secrets that only exist in your mind. If you leave a company and immediately start a direct competitor you'll always be vulnerable to a trade secret allegation. You just have to judge whether they'll actually come after you.
I'd recommend documenting your development practices to show you are doing your own work. But for a small company, just getting sued is going to cost half a million in legal fees.
If you are an employee at a competitor, in would never write or say anything about how your old company did it. If you know how to do it well, that's arguably just a skill you have.
There is no clear answer.
This doesn't really seem like much of a development to an outsider. Just more added to the pile.
Define "resolution".
The preliminary injunction will get ruled on fairly quickly (months most likely). You should expect either side to attempt an appeal of preliminary injunction as well (unlike most non-final judgements, in federal court, you can appeal preliminary injunctions)
The actual case will take years to resolve, not counting appeals, etc.
Mark lemley crunched the data: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597919
Note: Time to resolution includes settlement. So time to resolution is average of 1.28 years in n.d. cal, because most things settle.
Time to trial if it goes to trial, in n.d. cal, is 2.92 years
So a while if it goes to trial :)
Also at google,btw.
What is your goal in doing so?
These days, I still help out running open source licensing and compliance at a high level, but have just about handed all of it off to very good people who take care of it. I still get involved in M&A, policy issues, large or complex fires, etc. Even that is slowing down as people become more and more experienced. Which is great[1]
Now I spend most of my time running the C++ language teams (compiler/toolchains/core libraries/etc).
So, lawyer wise, these days, if they directly ask me for help, usually it means something has gone wrong.
[1] Truthfully, there are not enough really good open source lawyer types who actually understand the interplay of actual engineering and open source really well. The more i can help create, the better.
Neither law school, nor living in areas where you'd probably need to, in order to have access to the most relevant courts and highest densities of potential clients are cheap.
I'm sure the occasional settlement wrung out of non-compliant companies or whatever would help, but I'm also pretty sure "occasional" is very much the operative word there.
I'm really glad to hear it's more of a thing than I'd thought it was, though I will admit to some skepticism that working for someone like Google or whomever wouldn't somehow subtly taint one's motivations and efforts towards their goals, rather than what's best for Open Source writ large.
Then again, I was recently reminded of the Chade-Meng Tan quote about doing "what's best for the world," and then "wait[ing] to get fired," so maybe my cynicism isn't entirely warranted here, at least in the specific.
Most open source legal work is in companies.
"Neither law school, nor living in areas where you'd probably need to, in order to have access to the most relevant courts and highest densities of potential clients are cheap. "
It's definitely not worth it for the money. I did it, originally, because it became clear to me at a young age that patents were going to destroy the software industry, and that the average engineer was just going to sit around and complain on usenet (now hacker news i guess) about it :P
When i joined google, i actually spent a long ass time fighting for patent reform, too. But it got too lonely (google was often the only one fighting the good fight and the other side gets very good at smearing, etc), and after many years, you also have to survive. But the second you do, you become the villain. People want absolutes.
"I'm sure the occasional settlement wrung out of non-compliant companies or whatever would help, but I'm also pretty sure "occasional" is very much the operative word there. "
The problem here is that the damages are not likely to pay for the lawsuit in most cases. Sad, but true.
"I'm really glad to hear it's more of a thing than I'd thought it was, though I will admit to some skepticism that working for someone like Google or whomever wouldn't somehow subtly taint one's motivations and efforts towards their goals, rather than what's best for Open Source writ large. " Actually, watching and participating in the politics of GCC did that long before i ever joined google :P.
The truth is always in between. Nobody is completely altruistic, nobody is completely self-interested.
At the same time, when i train new googlers, we explicitly tell them we comply with licenses mainly because it's the right damn thing to do. And we believe it.
Primarily ensuring license compliance, but also things like trademarks or patents as needed. Really, whatever moves the broader cause of Free/Open Source Software forward.
> Actually, watching and participating in the politics of GCC did that long before i ever joined google :P.
Fair point. :|
Thanks for taking the time to address my thoughts and concerns. It truly is appreciated.
Come up with new and exciting ways of saying "No" to product managers.
Any good thing at a tech company is a collaboration between various parts (product, eng, etc). The second you let someone else run everything, you lose, and the product loses.
Sounds like this will settle in a year or so.
In fact, i made clear i'm not even working for legal.
You can not act as they have without major consequence(karma)!
Go read the actual court filings. All the news articles are leaving out important details. Techcrunch has them linked at the end of their article: https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/waymo-files-for-an-injunct...
Important bits:
injunction page 23 line 12-14: Waymo is not seeking to enjoin Defendants from pursuing self driving cars in toto. Waymo merely asks that Defendants not be allowed to use Waymos trade secrets in doing so.
Page 24 8-9: Moreover, Defendants would be free to use non-infringing alternative components in their business, such as the same third-party LiDAR system that they had previously used before switching to Waymos patented technology.
(Fun fact) From the Gary Brown testimony, page 4 lines 6-8 (Paraphrasing) The "database" was an SVN server, and the specialty software installed was TortoiseSVN.
As for this particular case, I have to say it seems a little strange to me that Anthony Levandowski could just leave Google and start his own company, Otto, with Google's intellectual property. No one complained then. But when Uber buys Otto, now it's a problem. One has to wonder who is playing who exactly?
From its customers to its drivers to journalists to etc and etc they treat all the same ...like garbage. That's because its CEO let his ego blow up(forgot humility and being thankful for the luck he's be given) and hopefully soon it will blow up in his face!!!
Also when and if Uber falls others who play fair will take over! I.e. All Uber drivers will make an exodus to Lyft!!!
Does this have a big influence on Google's competitive positioning ?
It's not like pharma companies have a free for all where everyone can steal from everyone because the more development on cancer treatment eleventy billion the better.
To put it differently, there's no guarantee that preventing Uber from working on this technology will cost lives in the future (Uber might not exist in 7 years and the technology might be a dead end), therefore it shouldn't be a factor.
There's going to be a year when self-driving cars become ubiquitous and deaths from cars drop to almost zero. The previous year, many thousands will die in cars. Those deaths are avoidable by pushing this agenda forward, and preventing Uber from moving forward hurts the agenda.
In the end, we can't know the future, so we use principles that are supposed to lead, by and large and on average, to better societal outcomes. Now, we can discuss specific principles, but reading tea leaves is not useful.
That's a contradiction in my books. I don't want to get into a metaphysical discussion of what "real" is, but I challenge you to say that things that may not happen are real. Example: Landing humans on Mars is not real.
> There's going to be a year when self-driving cars become ubiquitous and deaths from cars drop to almost zero.
Yes. I do agree with this.
> and preventing Uber from moving forward hurts the agenda.
This is not fact. I could argue that the greatest barrier to self-driving cars reducing vehicle deaths to 0 is legislation. I could then argue that the most harmful thing to pass that legislation is early, highly publicized failures of that technology. Finally, I would argue that of all the tech companies in a position to implement said technology, Uber is the MOST likely to push it too fast and cause a highly public, negative event (given their current cloud of doom). Therefore, I conclude that the most important thing to save lives is prevent Uber from implementing that technology.
But it's all moot because none of that is real. Just like your assertion.
Sure, I think that's a plausible scenario. It's also plausible that Uber will succeed (they've succeeded a lot!) and this will light a fire under everyone's butt and create amazing competition, pushing all car makers into this space earlier than they would have otherwise.
Of course we don't know, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't guess. My scenario above seems most likely to me, and therefore stopping Uber lets car makers rest of their laurels a bit longer.
And by the way I would take this further: I'd like to government to provide immunity to self-driving car manufacturers for the next few years while they develop their technology, the same way that vaccine makers are immune to health damages from their products.
Remember that we should be willing to kill hundreds of people with self-driving cars just to push the technology forward even one week. (600 people per week die in the U.S. in cars.) Of course I agree with you that this is politically untenable, but it's still what should be done.
I will never agree to that. A negligent death is a negligent death. We are not on the same page and I don't feel there is any potential benefit to a continued discussion. Good day.
The Supreme Court's decision to block the Medicaid expansion, for reasons, has cost thousands of lives per year for several years.
Problem is, IP is an invention that temporarily takes away the public's right to copy, for the purposes of encouraging cultural works and public documentation of trade secrets.
In other words, IP is based on "for the greater good" itself, so if you claim that "for the greater good" is invalid, then IP is invalid by extension.
Now, you could argue that it will damage trust in the reliability of the legal system, but that doesn't change the fact that the "if it's theft, it's theft" argument doesn't hold any water.
Errr, they are making cars, so ....
Google's active development of self driving tech is widely known.
The same can't be said of patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures who never intend to produce anything.
Intent, while it may not currently apply to patent law, does apply in other areas of law. Perhaps it will never apply to patents. But the public is not so short sighted as to not see the difference here.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/12/waymo-shows-off-its-new...
So they're clearly a practicing entity.