Alphabet’s Waymo filed a case against Uber for allegedly copying self-driving car idea, and the case is set to be tried. On Thursday, Judge William Alsup who is presiding over the case denied Uber’s request for arbitration. Consequently, the case will be analysed and perhaps settled in the court, but William advised that the case should be forwarded to federal prosecutors to study if Uber is guilty of the alleged stealing. While the US attorney yet approves the case, Uber may be facing criminal prosecution I the case if tried and they are found guilty.
Waymo filed a report against the former Google engineer and present vice president, Anthony Levandowski over the theft of 9.7 gigabytes of data (14,000 confidential documents) before leaving his place at Google. The claim by Waymo has it that Anthony stole documents including the company claims, trade secrets and patents, as well Waymo’s proprietary LIDAR system.
In Waymo’s report, he emphatically stated that Anthony stole the company’s technology and used it purchasing a $680 million worth of self-driving truck startup Otto barely six months after its launching.
On the other hand, Uber addressed the claims as baseless but had to agree that its self-driving technology is way less than Google’s as regards superiority. In a recent time, Levandowski left his position as Uber’s head of self-driving car unit.
Uber’s reason is based on a clause in the agreement between Levandowski and the company. This agreement entails that any case that arises in the future between the engineer’s former employee and Uber should be closed in arbitration. Contrary to the agreement, Waymo raised up the case against Uber.
The judge debunked Uber’s approach, claiming that Waymo has a legitimate backup to forward the case outside the shores of the arbitration. Alsup said the defendants have frequently blamed Waymo for employing strategic appeal to get away its arbitration duties by leaving out Levandowski as a defendant. Waymo has respected its duties to judge against Levandowski by arbitrating its claims against Levandowski. Since Waymo had no agreement of arbitration with the defendants, the judge said that Waymo’s resolution to bring different claims to the court against the accused was not only a rational act but also the only available approach. Alsup made it clear that the Fifth Amendment rights which Levandowski exercise has blocked and continued to put a halt to discovery and the defendants’ ability make a comprehensive narration as regards Waymo’s fate.
Waymo replied favourably via a spokesperson to Alsup’s resolution pointing out that it would continue to maintain the pressure on its rival. They stated that this was Uber’s undying bid to steer away from court’s jurisdiction and they welcome the court’s decision. However, they are bent on holding Uber responsible for its bad behaviour in court.
It is uncertain if the US Attorney may take up the case or Uber found guilty to the alleged criminal case. It wouldn’t come as a light scenario for a firm that has been in the news, and this will not be Uber’s first federal investigation. It has been flagged for its use of controversial grey ball software that pointed out government workers.