Evidence in Uber-Waymo case referred to criminal prosecutors

[FrodosNewPet]

Source: Financial Times

5 hours ago by: Richard Waters

The judge overseeing the legal battle between Uber and Alphabet’s Waymo division has taken the unusual step of referring evidence against Uber in the case to criminal prosecutors.

In a brief order issued late on Thursday, Judge William Alsup said he had asked for the evidence presented by Waymo to be passed on to the US attorney “for investigation of possible theft of trade secrets based on the evidentiary record supplied thus far.”

~ snip ~

The referral to criminal prosecutors comes days after it emerged that the Department of Justice has already begun another criminal investigation into Uber over a separate issue. That case concerns an piece of software developed by Uber called Greyball, which was designed to mislead regulators about the company’s operations.

~ snip ~

Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/73b93d45-cba8-368d-b2e4-974ee04e4c36

---

The high cost of UberArrogance?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Add those to the toxic and sexist workplace environment at Uber R&D. . . nt

[FrodosNewPet]

2. Waymos lawsuit against Uber is going to trial, judge rules

Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber is going to trial, judge rules

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/11/waymos-lawsuit-against-uber-is-going-to-trial-judge-rules/

Posted 20 hours ago by Kate Conger

Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber, its competitor in the automated vehicle business, is going to trial. Judge William Alsup ruled that Uber could not force the lawsuit over theft of trade secrets into private arbitration.

Instead, the trial will play out publicly, with evidence being presented mostly in the open. This is not the scenario that Uber wanted.

~ snip ~

“Waymo has honored its obligation to arbitrate against Levandowski by arbitrating its claims (concerning employee poaching) against Levandowski. Its decision to bring separate claims against defendants in court was not only reasonable but also the only course available, since Waymo had no arbitration agreement with defendants. Even though he is not a defendant here, moreover, Levandowski’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege has obstructed and continues to obstruct both discovery and defendants’ ability to construct a complete narrative as to the fate of Waymo’s purloined files. As a practical matter, it is hard to imagine how consolidating proceedings as to Levandowski and defendants, whether here or in arbitration, could alleviate these difficulties,” Alsup wrote.

The decision hints that Alsup’s pending decision on a preliminary injunction might not be favorable to Uber. Waymo had asked for the injunction to prevent Uber from using its technology while the case proceeds, and Alsup’s comments in the arbitration ruling suggest he’s not too keen on Uber’s behavior.

~ snip ~