The brewing showdown emerged late yesterday in a lawsuit filed in a San Francisco federal court by Waymo, a once-secretive self-driving company hatched by Google eight years ago.
The 28-page complaint accuses Anthony Levandowski, a former top manager for Google's self-driving car project, of stealing pivotal technology now propelling Uber's effort to assemble a fleet of autonomous vehicles for its ride-hailing service.
The alleged chicanery occurred in late 2015, before Levandowski left to found a startup called Otto that is building big-rig trucks that navigate highways without a human behind the wheel.
Uber and Levandowski didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
The dispute highlights the high stakes in the race to build self-driving cars that promise not only to revolutionize the way people get around but also the automobile industry. Waymo and Uber are two of the early leaders, while long-established car companies such as Ford, Toyota and General Motors are scrambling to catch up.
Waymo's lawsuit also will escalate the tensions between Google and Uber, two one-time allies that are morphing into rivals. Google invested USD 258 million in Uber, but its mapping subsidiary Waze is now expanding a carpooling service that could lure riders away from Uber.
Waymo now operates as a subsidiary of Google's corporate parent, Alphabet Inc, but its roots are in Google, where Levandowski worked for years.
The complaint cites evidence Levandowski loaded 14,000 confidential files on a laptop before leaving to Otto. The alleged theft included the designs for circuit boards needed for "LiDAR," an array of sensors that enable self-driving cars to see what's around them so they can safely navigate roads.
Waymo contends other former Google employees also stole trade secrets before leaving to join Otto. Without the alleged skullduggery, Waymo alleges that Levandowski and the other former Google employees wouldn't have been able to build the Otto technology that generated the windfall from the Uber sale.
The San Francisco company has tangled with authorities in California and around the world about how much of its drivers' histories should be covered in background checks and whether those drivers should be treated as contractors ineligible for employee benefits.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
