[commenter55]

Go read the actual court filings. All the news articles are leaving out important details. Techcrunch has them linked at the end of their article: https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/waymo-files-for-an-injunct...

Important bits:

injunction page 23 line 12-14: Waymo is not seeking to enjoin Defendants from pursuing self driving cars in toto. Waymo merely asks that Defendants not be allowed to use Waymos trade secrets in doing so.

Page 24 8-9: Moreover, Defendants would be free to use non-infringing alternative components in their business, such as the same third-party LiDAR system that they had previously used before switching to Waymos patented technology.

(Fun fact) From the Gary Brown testimony, page 4 lines 6-8 (Paraphrasing) The "database" was an SVN server, and the specialty software installed was TortoiseSVN.

[Qwertious]

"asks that Defendants not be allowed to use Waymos trade secrets in doing so."

I was under the impression that trade secrets were explicitly not legally protected, and the entire point of a patent was that you publicly document your invention, in exchange for legal protection.

[coriny]

This may (IANAL) be relevant: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-trade-secr.... California has laws dealing with the "misappropriation" of trade secrets.

[jlarocco]

If Uber had independently come up with the same ideas then there wouldn't be a case.

The real issue is that the guy "stole" the trade secrets and gave them to another company. No doubt he signed an employment contract with Google saying he couldn't do that.

[londons_explore]

Notice that this guy isn't actually a party to this litigation.

He might steal half a billion dollars worth of technology, be found out, and still get away scott free.