[rhino369]

It is typical for the terms of the license include giving back and not using the actually stolen documents/code. The license would just allow them to redesign without worrying about the other party indirectly using the trade secrets. It's because you can't really close pandora's box.

Though in many cases its beneficial to use this as a way to become a key supplier to a competitor. If it's not a winner take all market (and I doubt this is), then it might be more profitable to take a cut from Uber than to reduce competition by one.

A Google / Uber joint venture where Google provides the software and Uber does fleet management could be unbeatable, for example.

[heisenbit]

The protection of IPR is a strategic concern of Google. Outright theft committed by the highest levels in both companies is hard to settle for them because of the message it sends. Google may perceive to have more at stake than simply the self driving related IPR.

[londons_explore]

Not filing suits/charges against the individuals involved suggests "sending a message" isn't the goal.

In fact, the people involved look to have done rather well financially out of it so far.

[obstinate]

Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more. He won't make it out with his reputation or his power intact.

[sangnoir]

> Although when you have as much money as Levandowski already had even before this acquisition, it's hard to imagine that money is really the main motivating factor any more.

It really isn't hard to imagine - no one is too rich to be greedy, even billionaires want more money.