This case reminds me of the glory days of Samsung vs. Apple in intensity and interest in the case, except it's not all wildly up in the air. It's fairly straightforward as to what side "looks" good, and it feels like it's more of determining just how bad the damage is and how far set back Uber will be.

I don't remember the Apple v Samsung case being up in the air; I recall widespread shock on HN at the verdict, when it looked like it would be anything but. If you look back at comments from the time, most HN commenters felt vindicated when the award was reduced on appeal.

I wasn't around here during that dispute. As I remember it (and I could be off substantially), both sides were slinging mud at each other drawn out over a long period of many months. Both had large patent portfolios to throw at each other, along with accusations about seemingly stupid stuff, like apple suggesting Samsung not make rectangular phones.

Did Apple vs Samsung seem as clear cut as Uber vs Google does now?

Apple and Samsung sued and counter-sued in all following nations: Germany, Japan, US, Australia, EU.

Only the jury trial in Silicon Valley ended favorably for Apple. And that with a jury foreman who had a very questionable patent himself. After the trial he was saying stuff in interviews that showed he had a pretty strong bias for Apple for a few days, and than he went silent suddenly. Some suggested Apple or someone asked him to keep quiet. But who knows.

The legal battle between Apple and Samsung was literally fought on more continents than WW2. WW2 wasn't fought in US but Apple-Samsung battle did take place in US.

> The legal battle between Apple and Samsung was literally fought on more continents than WW2. WW2 wasn't fought in US but Apple-Samsung battle did take place in US.

North America (Pearl Harbor, Fort Stevens)

Europe

Asia

Africa

Australia ( Darwin, Sydney, battle of Brisbane )

Pearl Harbor is not in North America, it's in in Hawaii. Comparing the Fort Stevens incident to actual warfare is ridiculous.

You Don't talk about the Battle of Brisbane.

The shock was also because the jury awarded damage randomly, such as specific model being cited for violating patent there weren't (eg square phones being cited for violating rounded patent). That's where a lot of the reduction came from in appeal.

If you think the legal funds of these two companies are remotely equal...

Looks like Uber isn't hurting for lawyers. After a few tens of millions, spending 10x more doesn't get 10x more chances in court or better arguments.

Uber might even be able to pay them with stock...

You can get an awful lot of lawyers with the $11 billion Uber has raised. When you're talking multi billion dollar companies facing off you can bet they each have the 2 most expensive lawfirms in the country representing them.

Uber is still losing money though and fast. Their entire competitive advantage is that they have a shit ton of VC funding to subsidize rides with. They've been able to survive this long because they've always been able to raise more money on the promise that they might not lose money someday, presumably when they have self-driving cars. Now that the lawsuit has put their future in question they're going to have a lot more trouble getting another round of funding.

But one is venture-funded, the other warchest-funded. That is not equal footing; the pools of money are not infinite and Uber's is both shallower and far less ensured.

Yet Uber is the one who is trying to make it slow and painful by refusing to share the information needed to clarify the situation. When you add the two together, it's hard to feel bad for them; clearly they wouldn't act like that if they didn't have something shady going on.