[florean]

Only in @kateconger's replies[0], but it appears Alsup is still deciding whether he'll allow the Jacobs letter to be admitted as evidence for the jury. Excluding a letter alleging Uber stole Waymo trade secrets would be a big blow to Waymo. Especially one that Uber paid $7.5m to suppress. There isn't going to be a smoking gun, so Waymo has to make the case that Uber probably stole Waymo trade secrets because they've acted like they probably did.

[0]: https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/935971693192818688

[florean]

I was joking about Alsup allowing Uber's pretrial malfeasance to be disclosed to the jury. But the quotes in this Ars Technica article[0] make me wonder. "My normal inclination is, let’s decide the case on the merits but I’ve never seen a case where there are so many bad things like Uber has done." "It looks like you covered [the Jacobs letter] up, refused to turn it over to the lawyers that were most involved in the case, [and] to me, for reasons that are inexplicable." It sounds like Alsup is split on the Jacobs letter because he might be a "disgruntled employee who sees the handwriting on the wall". And he really wanted to know why Jacobs' lawyer got $3m for writing a letter. Alsup knows something doesn't smell right about the Jacobs settlement. If it is allowed...

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/waymo-asks-ubers...