Much like what we have seen with the opioid epidemic I suspect that people will pay more attention to stories about well-educated, affluent (read white) members of the upper middle class suffering from drug abuse. If the end result is more humane drug policy and enforcement then maybe it's a good thing?
I'm in my 20s and have worked as an engineer at a top tech company for over a year. I've seen a moderate amount of drug use during that time. I wouldn't characterize it as ubiquitous by any means, but it also isn't that uncommon. I've never heard of any of my coworkers doing drugs at work, but many of them do them recreationally outside of work and occasionally at work functions. This all may sound a little judge-y but this is what I know:
Two of the engineers on my team do drugs with some regularity. One likes to consume MDMA and other club drugs socially when going out with friends (I'd guess he does it on roughly a semi-monthly basis). The other is a regular cocaine user. He's somewhat cagey about this, but I suspect he does cocaine at least weekly. They have told me stories about doing cocaine together with other people in the office including college interns.
At my company there are also multiple managers in their early 40s/late 30s who frequently get drunk to the point of blacking out as part of after-hours work functions. These are guys with wives and kids at home, some of whom are very senior.
Best guess as to why they tell me this stuff is because my coworkers seem to assume I smoke a lot of weed (I don't) and therefore feel comfortable telling me what they get up to outside of work. I also typically drink liberally with them at the aforementioned work events so I'm seen as somewhat trustworthy. It's unusual enough that I'm still surprised when I find out my coworkers do some of these things but try not to judge them for it as I tried a few drugs in college. I'd probably do them too if I enjoyed drugs more.
The attitude of my manager and others towards this kind of behavior is best summarized as "the less I know the better". My boss is also pretty young and definitely has some idea of what young engineers at tech companies get up to. I get the feeling he willfully turns a blind eye so he doesn't have to feel responsible for the indiscretions of my teammates.
My take is that there's a little bit of denial about substance abuse within tech. It becomes very easy to see the drug use described above as normal when you're in an environment where lots of your peers are doing it and everyone is extremely well-paid and well-educated and able to rationalize self-destructive behavior in ways that are hard to argue with. It's a symptom of an industry that puts a premium on people with a lot of raw intelligence and high work ethic but not much self awareness.
If you are interested in hearing more feel free to reach out at the email on my HN profile.
There is no evidence Uber has any trade secrets from Waymo that they would have to stop using. That was why Google settled. If Uber did have any trade secrets they would have lost the case outright.
Uber gave up 245 million dollars. That's not based on nothing.
Really, if it was an open and shut case Uber could have gotten it dismissed. The fact they figured giving up 1/4 a billion dollars was better than continuing to fight says a lot more about their situation than any internet commentators can. The only reason for them to spend that money is because they was a significant chance aka well over 25% they would have lost significantly more by fighting.
There is a secondary market for Uber stock that's moderately liquid. It's not a public company, but every shareholder takes a haircut when they hand out more stock.
You do toss someone a couple hundred million in private equity for an immediate end to the damage to the company's brand, legal fees and recruiting efforts.
If Uber was in any real jeopardy of being found liable here they would have settled for far more. We know this because if Uber lost the case outright they would face an injunction against their self-driving business that would probably force them to license Waymo tech or put an end to the whole endeavor. Uber ATG is worth a lot more than what they paid in equity, and this is not an amount that matters at all to Google. The dollar figure is just there so Google can say they didn't come away with nothing.
> Uber ATG is worth a lot more than what they paid in equity, and this is not an amount that matters at all to Google. The dollar figure is just there so Google can say they didn't come away with nothing.
The settlement wasn't just for money, it also barred Uber from use of some of the disputed trade secrets/technology, which could be valuable for Google. Given that Uber hasn't monetized the technology yet, it would be hard to prove any damages. The outcome of a trial could have been a similar amount and an injunction and still been a big win for Google if the future self driving market is really going to be big and if the covered technology really was crucial.
No, Uber wasn't likely to settle for more, monetarily. The manner in which damages are fixed for trade secret and patent infringement make the total damages difficult to assess until the product goes to market. Google would be hard pressed to show actual loss, so Uber would likely be hit with some disgorgement stemming from unjust enrichment with some injunctive relief on the side.
What did they get? Unjust Enrichment sized damages and mutually agreed forbearance equivalent to injunctive relief.
And that's before we get into discussing how much of a minefield discovery was becoming in the case.
There is nothing in this settlement equivalent to injunctive relief. An injunction was the worst-case scenario for Uber and they would never settle for something that amounts to their worst-case, otherwise why not just finish the trial?
1) The most common and most valuable injunctive relief in IP litigation is an injunction to have people stop using your special sauce. That's literally what they got in the settlement.
2) Because prior to the trial there would have been a flurry of discovery related motions, a large amount of time pulling engineers off their jobs to have them perform witness prep at both companies, then a large period of pre-trial legal prep, then the trial itself.
At all stages, information is leaking, and expenses are going up.
... And then the appeals start.
... Then the partial re-trials and appeals on those.
That amount of money is a rounding error to Google, especially since it's in the form of private equity issued by a company they already have a stake in worth billions. Google probably negotiated for the equity to be included in the settlement just so they had something to show for this case.
Anyone who thinks this is a loss for Uber doesn't know what was at stake in this case. At one point an injunction against Uber's self-driving division was on the table. If that were still any sort of possibility Uber would have ended up paying far more than a couple hundred million in equity to settle the case.
I think it's safe to say this wasn't really about theft of trade secrets by Uber. We can infer this because Google's lawyers would have known exactly how weak their case against Uber was when nothing of substance turned up as part of discovery. Google decided to go to trial anyway. They knew that Uber's ailing brand would make them _seem_ guilty in the public eye even though they clearly weren't.
I can't prove this, but I think this was a chillingly opportunistic move by Google that was designed mainly to stop the loss of top engineering talent to Uber ATG. After all, who would want to go to join a company which appeared to be in serious legal jeopardy?
I'd speculate that Uber's current leadership saw an opportunity to immediately stop the damage to their brand and took it. Part of me wishes TK were still running the show because he probably would not have settled.
