Posted in IP Law, Start-ups

Uber boss Travis Kalanick knew of stolen Google files

Waymo (read Google) states that the proprietary information is clear within Uber’s project.

Uber admitted that when Lewandowsky started its new role at Uber, he had 5 disks of information from Google.

Uber admitted its CEO knew about Lewandowsky bringing proprietary information to Uber, but still denies responsibility and alleges that Uber asked the engineer to desist from bringing such proprietary information.

Lesson of the day: however you are doing in a lawsuit, always deny.

Source

Posted in Start-ups

Advocaat-Generaal: Uber levert primair vervoersdiensten, géén informatiediensten!

The question of whther Uber is a transport or an IT company is highly important as it can determine, mong the others, the applicable authority, not to mention the appeal to investors ( see Facebook and its advertisement business being self-branded as Tech).

The Attorney General within the EU jurisdiction) decided that Uber qualifies as a transport company.

Source

Posted in Contract Law

Déséquilibre significatif : quelles sont les principales évolutions de la jurisprudence ?

While several jurisdictions can count on abusive clause’s laws to give shelter to consumers, France tackled such abuses between commercial entities too with a 2008-law.

The Four main takeaways are that:

  • the range of actions is growing and reaches also relationship of unbalanced paower
  • a ruling is not limited to the single clause but the the overall contract
  • the unbalancement is quite broad as a concept, therefore rather far-reaching
  • the check on the legitimity is now even extended to the price assessment.

Source

Posted in Litigation, Privacy

Court Stops Pokémon GO Litigation

US courts are becoming more European.

A plaintiff triggered a lawsuit in Florida against the company behind Pokemon Go (Niantic Inc.) since its T&Cs were “illusory, deceptive, unfair, and/or unconscionable”.

Such privisions gave Niantic the right to unilatrally modify the agreement, to edit or delete one users’s data and similar nice stuff.

Well, the court denied protection to the plaintiff, because:

  • he had not yet suffered a damage (good work on the prevention of it, anyway)
  • the applicable law was the one from California, which could not be unapplied in Florida.

Source