If Google competes directly with a company they are invested in via GV they're going to really damage the reputation of GV. Why would you accept investment from them if they're going to get access to your private info and then turn around and screw you.
I don't have insider knowledge, but I believe Google claims that there's a wall between Google and GV, and they act completely independently. This makes sense to me -- otherwise, no one would pitch ideas to GV that Google might one day implement (i.e. basically all ideas that have a software angle).
To me, if Google uses insider knowledge to copy Uber, then that would be huge mistake and credibility killer; if they want to build up their own competitor from scratch without any insider knowledge, then that's their business.
I don't think Google Ventures's role is particularly relevant. Companies should be aware of what data they are providing Google when making use of Google services. Google doesn't need to have insider information to have a wealth of information about Uber trips: the number of trips, when they most frequently occur, duration and miles covered, what cities are most popular, what are the popular starting and ending points. All of these data can be mined from just watching Uber's use of the Google Maps API. It may not be contractually permitted, but the data are there for Google to use.
Through a paranoid lens, Google APIs are corporate espionage you sign up for. Since Google is a valuable and entrenched service provider, they can get away with it. What I could see companies doing in return is attempting to obscure their API usage by fabricating requests. For example, Uber could break the correspondence between API requests and trips by sending requests that look authentic but don't correspond to any actual trips. This kind of corporate information warfare sounds like something out of a William Gibson novel, but it certainly feels present and real when you look at Google's relationships.
When the wall is made of people, its hardly a wall. Even if Google doesn't use insider knowledge to copy Uber, unless Uber had no other possible investors it would later wish it had an investor who was out to kill the competition rather than an investor who is the competition. Thus the problem with VC arms of major tech companies.
Despite the "wall" between the two organizations from a knowledge-standpoint, there isn't one from a financial standpoint. If you had ambitions to be a $100+ billion company (see: Uber), and think Google might eventually want to compete with you, why would you want to fuel your competitor via your own success?
trillions, probably, because anything that eats up uber with autonomous driving likely soon eats up UPS, FedEx, all the large trucking companies that move goods, etc, etc.
The amount of secret sauce that's being shared with VCs is really up to the company. If the company is doing well, request for anything beyond the financials and strategy docs would be suspicious.
