Odd take, given the judge's words to Uber:
"But Alsup had harsher words for Uber. He said that using the joint attorney-client defense privilege to try to keep things like the Stroz report secret was an "elaborate scheme to conceal the facts from the public and particularly from Waymo." That made Uber mostly responsible for the delay. Uber also said, just this weekend, that it found that Levandowski's e-mails from his startup, Otto Trucking, hadn't been properly migrated to Uber and weren't produced. "That seemed remarkable to me, after 25 years of doing what you lawyers have been doing and 18 years on the bench," Alsup said. "That the most important witness in the case, somehow his own files got overlooked. That's very suspicious."
It was a quite reasonable assumption on Waymo's part, given that Uber and Levandowski met secretly for months before he left Waymo, he stole all those files from Waymo, and then Uber payed him 680 million for a startup.
And the only way Waymo could find out for sure what had happened was bring a lawsuit. Or do you think Waymo should have just taken Uber's word that it hadn't done anything illegal?
The trade secret claims are still looking pretty good for Waymo.
My interpretation of the judge's comments is that Uber is in a lot of trouble, if Waymo has a case at all. Which it looks like it doesn't.
I am not a lawyer. I am unaffiliated with the case in any way. Your mileage may vary. Not available in all states.
That's a hell of a claim.
Judge Alsup explicitly requested that Waymo narrow the scope of the case[1], so Waymo had to pare down to what they felt were the strongest claims:
> Over the course of the last several months, the judge has urged both parties to simplify the scope of the case so that each could be adequately prepared to argue the merits of the strongest claims post-discovery
1. https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/07/waymo-drops-patent-claims/
Come on, man. Don't be that way. I always list my affiliation when commenting on relevant articles. Listing potential conflicts of interest is a community norm--and besides, I'm proud of my affiliation!
I disclose all affiliations when there is a reasonable chance that others might consider it deceptive if I didn't disclose my biases and they were later discovered.
In longer format:
Sometimes, it isn't even an affiliation with a specific company and I'll simply type something like, 'I admit my bias(es).'
For the former an example might be, 'I was an early investor in Tesla and continue to own shares. This may bias my opinions.'
Basically, if in doubt, disclose affiliations and biases due to those affiliations. Sometimes affiliations mean the bias is a negative reaction, it's not always a positive response. 'I have previously worked with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and my opinion may be biased based on those experiences.'
If someone could later learn you were affiliated and say, 'Well, that explains their post!' it's probably better to have disclosed the affiliations in the first place.
This post is just meant to share how I do it and why I do it. You can, of course, disclose what you want. I think it is customary to make such disclosures on HN. It is in your profile, but I'm not sure many people check profiles.
No, it isn't. (it is if you are a journalist with a conflict of interest, which he isn't).
The second it is, i'm out.
Because there's no reason you should care.
It's just another excuse for people to be able to dismiss what others say without having to think critically about it. If you want to engage on the merits, do it.
Everyone and everything is biased. Both consciously and not. If you want to say "hey, i read the article and i think your take is wrong", awesome, do that. His take isn't any righter or wronger because he's an uber engineer, and the whole point of a discussion forum like this is, in fact, to have critical thinking. Otherwise it's just another worthless echo chamber.
(I'm going to completely and totally ignore the "people also aren't their jobs" part of this).
So instead of caring about his day job, IMHO, you should do the critical thinking and engage in the discussion for real.
It doesn't have to be in more formal settings such as in publications by journalists - I also see disclaimers stated by others in HN comments often.
"potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact."
This is, in my experience, nonsense. The only thing disclaimers add to a good faith discussion is the ability of people to do exactly what you claim they'll do "after the fact", during the discussion. Please stare at any comment with a disclaimer from a group people don't like (uber, for example), and count how many comments are about where they work instead of their argument.
IE They are upset they turned out to agree with someone that belongs to some group they don't like, or whatever.
It is also against the very definition of good faith you describe to do that kind of thing "after the fact", regardless of who you are. The fact that you believe disclaimers are necessary to a good faith discussion means you aren't actually having discussions in good faith.
It certainly was in all my research courses when I was in school.
Or do you just mean I should have to click to do the source evaluation?
Would we like to know when bias exists? Sure.
Do we need to castigate those who neglect to comment on their own bias? I don't think it's necessary.
Since this case began I've been waiting for Waymo to drop the bomb, and no bomb has materialized. Levandowski is in trouble, but what is it again that Waymo has to levy against Uber? I'm not seeing much.
But seriously, judge a person's comments on the merits of their argument, not who they work for.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest are a huge red flag. Selectively posting critical comments about your competitors is pretty shady. Doing it without disclosure of the bias is very shady.
It's not like his bias was that hard to figure out, all you had to do was open his user profile. If there are genuine Uber astroturfers creeping around they wouldn't be that easy to unmask.
My employer (Microsoft) has a serious policy about disclosing employment if making comments about our products or our competitors' products online, because it otherwise reflects very poorly both on the individual and the company.
Of course, Uber's track record of ethical conduct is pretty spotty. It's not surprising that some of their employees wouldn't see the issue with posting negative comments without disclosure about not just competitors but competitors waging active legal battles against Uber.
Worse, Uber doesn't have that policy. Microsoft does. Uber doesn't have to obey Microsoft's arbitrary made up rules. You're just looking for an excuse to hurt somebody, while ironically, and with total lack of self awareness accusing them of being ethically challenged.
And maybe you've forgotten what Microsoft did to get where it is today. Because in the 90s it was just as ethically challenged as Uber is now.
2. Uber and Microsoft aren’t really competitors.
> Worse, Uber doesn't have that policy. Microsoft does. Uber doesn't have to obey Microsoft's arbitrary made up rules. You're just looking for an excuse to hurt somebody, while ironically, and with total lack of self awareness accusing them of being ethically challenged.
You have no idea whether Uber has this policy. It’s also not an arbitrary policy. It’s expected among reasonable people to reveal conflicts of interest. It’s why journalists and stock advisers clarify when they’re writing about their employers or stocks they hold. It’s why the FCC demands that sponsored tweets are labeled as such. And it’s why disclosure is very common here in HN. If Uber doesn’t have this policy, they should.
Accusing me of intentionally hurting others is just lame. I called out an inappropriate behavior while you’re now essentially engaging in an ad hominem attack.
> And maybe you've forgotten what Microsoft did to get where it is today. Because in the 90s it was just as ethically challenged as Uber is now.
Microsoft had one “ethically challenged” space, which was they they leveraged their monopoly power. Uber has bent or broken ethical standards over and over. They started by breaking laws in many of their markets. They’ve intentionally wasted competitors time and fuel by calling for cars and canceling. They’ve enabled their employees to stalk celebrities. They created greyball explicitly to evade law enforcement. And on and on. I don’t think Microsoft was ever as ethically challenged as Uber.