undefined | Better HN

0 pointsearthtourist6y ago0 comments

Claiming that exclusivity is they key value is ludicrous.

The key value of autonomous vehicle IP is the ability to autonomously drive vehicles. Unless you're a patent troll.

In this case, the IP was never utilized in the marketplace against them, so they suffered no significant amount of damage.

It's reasonable that they sued to stop the use of their illegally copied IP. It's reasonable that he's punished. But it should be proportionate to the damage, which was minimal.

0 comments

x0x06y ago

That's similarly ludicrous.

Autonomous vehicle IP is enormously more valuable if Google is the sole supplier. The value to Google is significantly less if Google plus multiple competitors have it.

Your claim basically devolves to no harm, no foul, and that's not how our legal system generally works. The attempted theft was of great value.

earthtouristOP6y ago

Our legal system does usually involve "proving damages".

Obtaining autonomous vehicle IP is not equivalent to having autonomous vehicle product in the market.

As an example: Boeing could almost certainly publish all of the IP for the 787 jet and not risk spawning a single legitimate competitor. Very few organizations in the world could do anything with it.

What's truly valuable to a Google or Boeing is their financial, engineering, manufacturing, and operations resources. And other less tangible things.

Which is why severe punishment for illegally copying IP doesn't make a lot of sense. Yes, it should be illegal and should be stopped, but it's not that big a deal in most cases.

It just seems like a big deal because "tHey StolE tHe SeCreT cOdEs!" as if it's a James Bond movie.

It's a case of confusing the golden goose with the golden eggs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse