[gregcohn]

I thought the most interesting but unexplained phrase in the piece was "contrary to paperwork filed with the Nevada DMV".

As in, "Uber also claims that, contrary to paperwork filed with the Nevada DMV, it has never deployed a custom LiDAR system in any of its cars or trucks and will not be ready to do so by the time the case is slated to go to trial in October."

(Edit for formatting.)

[AnimalMuppet]

So, what paperwork did they file with the Nevada DMV? Was it for a permit for them to run driverless cars on Nevada's roads? Did they lie to Nevada in the process of trying to get that permission?

Or is there a more benign explanation of that statement? (I suppose it could have been a non-material error...)

[carlosdp]

It is explained further down actually:

"But in paperwork filed with Nevada regulators last July, Otto claimed that it “developed in house and/or currently deployed” a 64-laser LiDAR system in its autonomous trucks. Uber now says this was an error. “Every single self-driving car that Uber has put on the road to date uses commercially available LiDAR sensors from third parties,” Uber wrote in its filing."

[mannykannot]

The latest statement, at least the part quoted here, says nothing about the "developed in-house" clause of the initial paperwork.