A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit

Re:A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit by Buge on Friday December 08, 2017 @02:56AM (#15877364)

Yeah, it makes Uber look kind of incompetent, like they didn't do their research (Google too). If he was hired by Uber to do the research, only Google would look incompetent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit by jrf6 on Friday December 08, 2017 @08:27AM (#15878473)

It makes their experts look incompetent. Quite a bit of what this guy found should have been low-hanging fruit for an expert witness.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit by bonesss on Friday December 08, 2017 @08:54AM (#15878599)

Any chance they were saving that for the trial?

Strategically, isn't it better for Uber to let Waymo yap on and on about it and then crush them during the trial than to ask the patent office for a review and let Waymo drop the issue before the trial even starts?

I mean... if I knew something embarrassing that opposing council didn't know, and I had no obligation to inform them, I would definitely see that knowledge as a weapon and a strategic tool. Letting Waymo drop it without embarrassment is a bit of a win for Waymo, IMO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Spectator Who Threw a Wrench in the Waymo/Uber Lawsuit by rhino369 on Friday December 08, 2017 @11:03AM (#15879597)

>Any chance they were saving that for the trial?

Yes.

>Strategically, isn't it better for Uber to let Waymo yap on and on about it and then crush them during the trial than to ask the patent office for a review and let Waymo drop the issue before the trial even starts?

Uber would have to inform Waymo of their invalidity theory way before trial. You can't spring new prior art right before trial.

[ Parent | on HN ]