Judge orders Uber not to use technology taken from Waymo
seattletimes.com
seattletimes.com
As I've pointed out before, the whole LIDAR thing is a side issue. Google's LIDAR is another Velodyne-like spinning thing. Google's patented innovation is to make each scan beam slightly oval, which is marginally useful but not essential. Spinning 3D LIDAR units are research and prototyping tools. The future is either flash LIDAR or MEMS. Even Velodyne is moving beyond the spinning top thing.[1]
Here's a video with some images from Continental's flash LIDAR.[2] That's suitable for production cars. Continental is a big German auto parts company. They make other LIDAR products, vehicle cameras and processors, radars, GPS units, and most of the other parts needed for self-driving. Continental demoed a self-driving car in 2013. They have 1,300 people working on this. Uber makes a lot of noise, but Continental is going to ship product in volume.
Quanergy, a Silicon Valley startup, announced a flash LIDAR last year, but they seem to be having problems getting it out the door. A new startup, TetraView, got series A funding to develop a higher resolution flash LIDAR ("2K", they boast), using standard CMOS technology.[3] That, if it works, will bring the price down further while increasing the resolution, and will have other robotics applications.
So nobody really needs the Waymo LIDAR technology. For testing, you can buy a Velodyne, and for production, the flash LIDAR people are almost ready.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/velodyne-lidar-enters-the... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxy08YX0C8w [3] http://www.tetravue.com/technology/
1. "Waymo’s patent theories are too weak to support any provisional relief."
2. "By contrast, the trade secrets case presented by Waymo does warrant provisional relief."
3. "Moreover, it has become clear that Waymo has both overreached in defining its trade secrets and made moving targets out of its asserted trade secrets to evade defensive arguments. Under these circumstances and on this record, no adverse inference that could be drawn in Waymo’s favor would justify overlooking these problems, pretending that all 121 of Waymo’s asserted trade secrets are valid, and enjoining defendants from using any of them so as to effectively halt Uber’s self-driving efforts until trial."
4. "Waymo is hereby granted further expedited discovery in aid of possible further provisional relief. Subject to the protective order, and upon reasonable notice, Waymo’s counsel and one expert may inspect any and all aspects of defendants’ ongoingwork involving LiDAR — including, without limitation,schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails — whether or not said work resulted in any prototype or device."
EDIT: one more I forgot, which is interesting:
5. This order, however, threatens no sanctions against Levandowski. It simply directs Uber, a private employer, to do whatever it can to ensure that its employees return 14,000-plus pilfered files to their rightful owner. If Uber were to threaten Levandowski with termination for noncompliance,that threat would be backed up by only Uber’s power as a private employer, and Levandowski would remainfree to forfeit his private employment to preserve his Fifth Amendment privilege. No binding case law holdsthat the Fifth Amendment prohibits such actions by private employers. In short, in complying with this order,Uber has no excuse under the Fifth Amendment to pull any punches as to Levandowski.
Basically, if Levandowski refuses to turn over the documents, Uber is forced to fire him, which means the $250,000,000 they already gave him goes up in smoke.
This might not have been the bombshell ruling against Uber that they were hoping for, but it sets up that bombshell ruling if they can actually find the evidence with this new discovery.
The fact that none of the technology made it into their Lidar designs makes it hard to believe that anything will be found. The idea that somehow discovery will determine there was something stolen seems pretty low at this point.
I agree that the order to compel returning the documents is interesting, and to me potentially the most "damaging" if they are forced to fire Levandowski.
This is a bit confusing. If none of the technology made it into their designs, why was a manufacturer delivering a part proprietary to Google to them? That's my understanding of what kicked this whole thing off, Google being accidentally CC'd by a manufacturer for a purchase of a part that nobody else should have known about. If that's correct, while it doesn't necessarily mean that Google tech was utilized in some integral component, it does signal that they weren't averse to using that tech in some fashion.
I'm left wondering if the real meat of this case is to be found as Google examines the hardware, which it sounds like they've now been given the go ahead to do.
Under oath. How many employees do you think that is? How many people?
If Anthony discussed these 14,000 files with anyone - which is not a stretch to think that he has - then they have to admit it under oath or deny it under oath. You think others are going to want to perjure themselves for Uber?
The head of research on LIDAR at Uber had 14,000 files from Google that were pilfered before he left and he did this for purely for shits and giggles and not in any way to use these files for anything in his future job? The Judge says in the order it is preposterous to think this. Still, it is up to Google to prove misuse and he is intent on giving them the discovery they need to do so if they can.
That said, on pages 13-15 of the injunction document, Judge Alsop sees clear influence of trade secrets in the design of the Lidar's PCB. This is the damning portion that lead to the injunction.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591
There's a link to the testimony in that topmost comment too for those that want to read it for themselves.
I agree that this was Alsop's backhanded way of getting Uber to fire Levandowski; either Levandowski will reveal the documents and face prison, or he never had them on personal devices and Uber still has to fire him because he didn't produce them.
Also, from what I understand, the real benefit to uber was from Levandowsky bringing 100 former google eng with him to bootstrap uber SDC project. Well, those 100 eng are at uber now, or maybe they've moved on, but point being the damage is done, and you can't undo that.
Waymo wants uber SDC shut down, they feel robbed, and anything less than that in their view is not justice.
The Judge specifically says in the ruling that a much stronger injunction can come at any point right up to the start of trial if Google is able to find additional evidence in the new discovery he is ordering. My read of the ruling is that the Judge expects that Google is likely to find just such evidence in the discovery he is newly ordering.
"Waymo is hereby granted further expedited discovery in aid of possible further provisional relief. Subject to the protective order, and upon reasonable notice, Waymo’s counsel and one expert may inspect any and all aspects of defendants’ ongoing work involving LiDAR — including, without limitation,schematics, work orders, source code, notes, and emails — whether or not said work resulted in any prototype or device. Withrespect to its trade secret misappropriation claims only, Waymo may take seven further depositions on seven calendar days notice, may propound 28 reasonably narrow document requests for which the response time is reduced to 14 calendar days, and may propound 28 reasonably narrow interrogatories for which theresponse time is also reduced to 14 calendar days. If Waymo moves for further provisional relief before trial, then all its declarants in support of such motion must sit for depositions on an expedited basis. Otherwise, defendants may take only normal, unexpedited discovery. After Waymo has exhausted its expedited discovery, it may continue with normal discovery."
I mean, seriously, they've just been granted a shit load of access to their biggest competitors secrets. Pray they don't abuse that...
Man I hate Scribd. Why does anyone use it? No, I do not want to download your app to read a PDF, and I don't understand why CNBC published it through your service.
Eg, Chrome in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history
Firefox in 2012 http://news.softpedia.com/news/PDF-JS-and-Download-Manager-P...
I imagine that puts the burden of proof of "stolen tech" on Google though, so they can't just make claims without evidence.
Any attorneys want to confirm/correct my understanding?
Uber is required to perform a thorough accounting of any design aspects stemming from the trade secrets noted in Waymo's filing. Uber is required to interview all individuals who worked with Levandowski to circumvent Levandowski's usage of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination protections. If Uber can't compel the information the court seeks, it must use its full authority to obtain it. Judge Alsop explicitly says Uber must terminate any uncooperative employee.
A Waymo attorney and an expert get to audit Uber's self-driving technology to identify aspects of the trade secrets annotated in Waymo's filing.
The enforcement is that if Waymo's expert and attorney unearth any lack of compliance by Uber, they can face Contempt of Court charges. Since Waymo is pursuing this case zealously, I expect this to be enough incentive for Uber to follow the court order in good faith.
In the past, Uber has complied with discovery motions even when the results embarrassed the company, e.g. the executive venting: about how he wishes he could dig up dirt to discredit a journalist.
Also, the court also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney for a possible criminal investigation, so depending on what they decide Levandowski could come under criminal charges also. (He is already taking the 5th.)
> Defendants have also presented an “independent development” narrative in which they developed their own LiDAR technology without using any confidential information from Waymo. That narrative, however, studiously omitted any inquiry into Levandowski’s work, essentially erasing him from the history of Uber’s self-driving car development. Put differently, the record shows Uber bought Levandowski’s services for a tremendous amount of money and positioned him at the forefront of its self-driving car efforts but is barren on how Levandowski has been earning that money and title.
(and later)
> Indeed, defendants have already carefully crafted a narrative of their self-driving car efforts that conspicuously and incredibly denies any meaningful contribution by Levandowski - even though Uber, in a deal worth approximately $680 million dollars, hired him to lead those efforts.
Hence, there is no way Uber will sue Levandowski. He'd simply spill the beans and then Uber would be screwed.
This is only a preliminary injunction. Uber is entitled to the most favorable interpretation of the evidence for this motion. They won't get that later, though.
* (Well, Waymo's alleging that the court should make an adverse inference that they did because of Uber's behavior around the report).
> Meanwhile, emails between Uber executives on January 12 and January 13 showed they had prepared a document titled “NewCo Milestones v5” for Levandowski to review in advance of a meeting the following day.
He didn't quit until the 27th. If you're poaching someone highly-placed off of your competitor you either have a plan for how you'll prove that they _didn't_ steal secrets or (like Uber) you get court orders to expose all your files.
Hire high level employee X, talking while they are employed with your competitor or not, how do you prove they don't 'copy files' or bring documents with them to their house? Search their house? How do you know they didn't put them in some secret location?
It is not a knock out blow against Uber, but look at the relief granted with regard to more discover. Uber has to do a complete accounting of everyone who talked to Lewandowsky about LIDAR and the contents and dates of those conversations. They have to get every employee under oath saying whether they used any info or knew of any info in those 14,000 files.
In short, Uber didn't get knocked out by this order, but it certainly sets them up for getting knocked out as the Judge clearly is interested in getting to the bottom of this.
If evidence exists that Uber knew of or used information in those 14,000 files ... the Judge and Waymo are determined to find it. I think that is bad for Uber know matter how you look at it.
It says nothing about trade secret _misuse_ but alsip does discuss trade secret theft, which is an important distinction. So far, there is no evidence that Uber has used any waymo trade secrets in their SDC program, and if there was any evidence the program would have been shut down BUT there is significant evidence that Levandowsky did steal a treasure trove of documents as he was on his way out the door.
What the ruling does show is that Levandowsky is considered to be toxic, and will not be allowed to work at uber on any programs that he may have stolen trade secrets for.
It is entirely possible that Levandowsky downloaded the 14k files for his use, but they never impacted the designs at uber, at least in a legally provable form.
I am not familiar enough with case law in this arena to know the legal intricacies but my initial reaction is that, while uber is not off the hook, the potential damage they may receive as an outcome of this has has been reduced immensely (shut down entire program => remove head exec running program) when compared with the rhetoric before this injunction was released.
The ruling in general gives the definite impression that the Judge is very interested in seeing the evidence one way or another whether stolen tech was used by Uber and claims of privilege and 5th amendment will be greatly hindered going forward.
I'm an Alphabet employee but not one working on Waymo-related projects, nor am I a lawyer who feels qualified to comment on this situation. Wish Groklaw was still around to interpret these rulings for us :(.
FTFA:
"Judge William Alsup in San Francisco says in the ruling that Waymo has shown “compelling evidence” that a former star engineer named Anthony Levandowski downloaded confidential files before leaving Waymo. The Judge also says evidence shows that before he left Waymo, Levandowski and Uber planned for Uber to acquire a company formed by Levandowski."
Levandowski took a bunch of stuff from Waymo. There seems to be very little doubt of that. Levandowski, while in possession of those documents, formed Otto. Uber bought Otto. Therefore, Uber bought a company that included a person who stole a bunch of documents from Waymo.
Now: Did Uber get access to the documents? Did Levandowski not show them the documents, but just use the contents to give guidance/instructions/knowledge? Either of those would be "Uber taking the technology".
Or did Levandowski just put those files away on a drive somewhere, and never use them while at Otto or Uber? I don't believe that for a minute, but it's possible (from the evidence so far).
You have a point in general, but it is some of specifics of this case that raise doubts about whether that is the whole story.