Could they, though? Uber's valuation is based on its taxi technology business. The self-driving stuff might be their long play, but certainly not the source of their value.

I have no idea what kinds of damages Waymo might have been able to extract from Uber, but it seems very unlikely that it would have been in the multi-billion-dollar range. $245 million is a huge sum, add to that the saved cost of ongoing litigation.

Uber value is based on adopting SDC. Otherwise the business does not work long term.

Nonsense. SDC becoming viable on scale is decade or two in the future. Uber is valued based on its ride sharing and food delivery business. Investors apparently believe it can be profitable on big scale therefor good investment.

> Uber value is based on adopting SDC.

Not sure what you were trying to say?

The value of the taxi technology is predicated on surviving high losses for a few years to secure riders for the autonomous fleet that will emerge. The driver component in the current equation is 100% subsidized by investors.

So does this mean perhaps their case wasn't as strong as they thought?

How so? How do you prove the financial implications of a technology that doesn't quite exist or provide financial benefit right now?

You use your opponents own estimates of that value. Uber would have had those; and I'd be willing to bet they were sky-high given their strategy.

They were asking for about $1b in damages, according to an article I just read. This is a substantial fraction of that.

I thought it was $1.9b originally.

Either way. Generally the asked-for damages is much larger than the settlement.

This is actually a pretty typical fraction for a settlement.