Google doesn't have to convince a jury of anything to win. All they need to do is hold up Uber's next funding round for long enough to force them to drop out of a few markets.

Yeah, when you put it that way you realize how screwed the system is for the little guy. I am no fan of Uber's, and if they did what Waymo alleges they should be packing up shop, but I imagine it can be brutal for startups having that extra risk associated with your brand.

I'm not sure "screwed for the little guy" is really the right way to look at this. If Uber weren't so dependent on VC to subsidize their growth, delaying a funding round wouldn't be quite so disastrous. It's entirely possible to be the little guy without putting yourself in the situation that Uber has gotten themselves into.

Uber is not at all the "little guy".

No sorry, awkwardly worded gp. I meant that it made me realize how bad it is for little guys in Uber's position, who are basically punished until proven innocent and probably don't have the war chest Uber does. (Uber's still the little guy in this particular fight, but I agree they aren't a little guy anymore)

Uber is the "Little guy" ?

I think they are talking about any situation where a smaller business is sued by a larger one; the larger party doesn't have to be right, they just need to have enough funds to stalemate the smaller party until they get driven out of business.

How long can Uber go without more money? They've raised billions, but they are burning through billions to subsidize growth. I don't see Uber doing too well if this drags on.

Honestly, I'd bet they can stop subsidizing growth at this point and not die.

Sure, competitors will start to gain more traction, but they're already in a lot of markets and competitors can't afford to have the same coverage as Uber. So while they'll lose a lot of people that are only local (see Austin for an example of this happening in a more complete way), I think they will retain pretty much all international/business travel type business, which is a pretty big moneymaker, just due to the convenience of "one app".

e.g. when I fly from London to the states, I take an Uber to the airport in London and take an Uber from the airport wherever I land (assuming they have Uber). One app, one linked credit card, etc.

I don't want a different on-demand car app for each city I happen to visit, which is where Uber will win out for the foreseeable future.

This is an often overlooked point. Uber is the only one in this space with a global brand. And they're very deeply entrenched in international markets - I can use Uber in a tiny city in the UK the same way I can in the US. The actual local implementation is different (here Uber is a fully fledged private hire firm), but the brand and the experience remain consistent.

I don't think a normal jury will understand the details but being that it's in the bay area maybe they will!

I think this is much simpler than Oracle v Google concerning Java APIs. Levandowski stole thousands of documents from Google, started a competitor using those documents, then sold his startup to Uber. And the timeline makes it look like Uber was involved from the beginning.

I think that's what works to Google's benefit. They don't need the jury to understand the technical details if they can convince the jury that Uber has a history of acting unethical and this just another data point with evidence.