The ambiguity actually works in Uber's favor: as long as there is the tiniest thread of plausibility that you are using a similar price algorithm, they can convince a judge to tie you up in court, burning time and legal fees while the onus is on you to prove otherwise.
That seems backwards to me. Why is the onus on the company being accused? Surely Uber in that case has to provide the proof. Otherwise it seems to me like a case of trying to prove that a unicorn doesn't exist. I'm not well-versed in legal protocol but I'd hope in any case that it would be reverse.
And finally, would other parties using pricing tech already, e.g., airlines, be able to sue for issuing a bad patent, e.g., [1], on the ground of prior art?
