Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

My guess is corporate espionage. For them to get an injunction like this, they probably paid members of the engineering team to give them proprietary information.


sort by: page size:

At the risk of sounding pedantic, it says they "filed legal action". They may have just filed for an injunction.

They probably just want to tell their employees that sharing "trade secrets" won't be tolerated. Nothing better for that than a lawsuit with ridiculous amounts of money. It might fail but it sends a strong message.

Not that I don't despise this kind of practices...


Another anti-trust suit perhaps.

My best guess would be that he (or she!) posted something that required information that they do not believe the general public would have.

The lawsuit was probably part of an effort to identify a leak.


I believe that there is a lawsuit involving the third party devices as well. Pretty interesting saga.

Sounds like an attempt by i2 to crush a new competitor with a very vague lawsuit. Hard to tell if it has any merit.

Yeah, this is like, we are getting sued for billions of dollars and directors are going to jail bad.

So my bet is either they lied about how they are using customer data, covered up a massive data breach or something similar to that.


It's also is the design ARM (the company) is suing to be destroyed. Like literally destroyed.

The author appears to have written a follow-up comment recently[0].

It appears that they are technically unable to comply with the injunction.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27627626


As far as I can tell it's a business/patent dispute.

https://www.visbiome.com/blogs/visbiome-vs-vsl-3/exegi-wins-...


I feel like the most interesting part of this is the effort to stop Aurora from using their tech. Anyone know if there is legal precedent to doing that from a civil suit?

I wonder if it is for the anti-trust lawsuit. Claim that nobody else can provide what they need?

I don't think @dang will pin the above comment, but this needs to be higher here as the reply includes that they received a legal order. This is maligning the company unjustly.

What’s the company with the flaw that is suing?

> a final injunction which allowed Nissan Computer Corporation to maintain control of the domains Nissan.com and Nissan.net so long as it neither advertised nor mentioned/made disparaging comments about Nissan Motor.

First thing I see on nissan.com is a massive "Nissan's motor lawsuite against us" with crossed Nissan logos and "it could happen to you too", then a massive ad below this. Doesn't Nissan have a case that not only he doesn't respect his side of the bargain but he's obviously using Nissan's popularity for his own benefit?


They're probably after the guy who sold it to Gizmodo since he didn't act in good faith.

I've been too focused on the tech that I forgot about the legal part of this. Is this why they've all given wishy-washy responses that take no responsibility and seemingly don't even admit there's a problem? Sounds like they expect massive legal recourse and have no real choice but to listen to their lawyers who are telling them to admit no guilt.

Hm, if the lawsuit is going to drive more customers to them, wouldn't it make more sense to also include an injunction requiring them to comply with GDPR-like laws? That would seem to head of the potential of further data loss.

This means they violate their existing privacy policy. Then folks start suing. Could be very costly.
next

Legal | privacy