It’s damning for the guy, who has already been convicted, but not necessarily for NVidia. Valeo have provided no evidence of NVidia using their code, nor even mention of any specific NVidia product it might have been used in.
That’s exactly the take-away I got from the whole thing. One idiot copy-pasted stuff and used it in front of the people he copied it from.
Valeo will have a hard time proving its use, without a third party doing some searching in a lot of source code. One person with access to all of both sides’ code in order to compare them? that seems like a big ask for a fishing expedition.
Well it looks like they probably did use it though. The one guy had the code on his NVidia work laptop, and NVidia won an AI software contract over Valeo. It was in a collaborative call with Valeo (who won the hardware portion of the contract) that the code was revealed. NVidia may well be ordered to hand over their code for examination, to prove that Valeo’s code isn’t present in there. If Valeo get the injunction, NVidia will have to cease using that code and rewrite it entirely.
MNByChoice@midwest.social 1 year ago
Valeo and Nvidia competed on a contract. Valeo won the hardware part, Nvidia the software part. The lawsuit is about Nvidia benefiting on this project.
Details from another place the same story, but from The Verge. lemmy.nz/post/3702572
TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Direct link to the article: theverge.com/…/valeo-nvidia-autonomous-driving-so…
TL;DR NVidia and Valeo competed for an AI contract, Valeo won the hardware side but NVidia won the software (surely that’s backwards lol). The two companies had to work together on the project, it was during such a project call that Moniruzzaman was caught with old Valeo code.
So yeah, that’s much more damning, and the Fortune article did a poor job with the story by not explaining that.
Dangdoggo@kbin.social 1 year ago
Ah, there's the rub. Thanks I was having a hard time figuring this one out.