Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/technology/uber-anthony-levandowski.html?_r=0
298 comments
If he stays out of jail re: the criminal prosecution, the hype will die down, people will forget about it, the internet outrage machine will move on, and he'll do something else and be fine.
Isn't anyone concerned that you can be fired for excising your rights under the constitution?
What stops Uber from hiring him again as a contractor?
Statement from Levandowski's lawyers:
https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pd...
"The bite of the Court’s May 11, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Order, as it relates to nonparty Anthony Levandowski, can be summarized quite simply: 'Waive your Fifth Amendment rights... or I will have you fired. The choice is yours, Mr. Levandowski.' But, even when framed as a “choice,” this command runs counter to nearly a half century of United States Supreme Court precedent, beginning with Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment forbids a government entity from threatening an individual with the choice “between self-incrimination and job forfeiture.” Id. at 497, 500. As the Supreme Court observed in Garrity, the “option to lose [one’s] means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent.” Id. at 497. As the Supreme Court made clear, whenever a state actor imposes this choice between “the rock and the whirlpool,” it engages in unlawful constitutional compulsion, which, among other things, operates to immunize any resulting testimonial statements."
Isn't anyone else here bothered by the due process implications of Judge Alsup's demand to force Levandowski to give up a Constitutional right or be fired? I'm generally a fan of Alsup, but this sets terrible precedence.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pd...
"The bite of the Court’s May 11, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Order, as it relates to nonparty Anthony Levandowski, can be summarized quite simply: 'Waive your Fifth Amendment rights... or I will have you fired. The choice is yours, Mr. Levandowski.' But, even when framed as a “choice,” this command runs counter to nearly a half century of United States Supreme Court precedent, beginning with Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment forbids a government entity from threatening an individual with the choice “between self-incrimination and job forfeiture.” Id. at 497, 500. As the Supreme Court observed in Garrity, the “option to lose [one’s] means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent.” Id. at 497. As the Supreme Court made clear, whenever a state actor imposes this choice between “the rock and the whirlpool,” it engages in unlawful constitutional compulsion, which, among other things, operates to immunize any resulting testimonial statements."
Isn't anyone else here bothered by the due process implications of Judge Alsup's demand to force Levandowski to give up a Constitutional right or be fired? I'm generally a fan of Alsup, but this sets terrible precedence.
As easy as it is to hate on Uber, this is indeed troubling. Odd that you can tie such things to Constitutional rights.
The thing to note here, is that as far as Alsup is concerned, Levandowski isn't a party to the case. There's Uber and Waymo. Uber has been instructed to get information for Waymo as part of a civil proceeding in which Levandowski is not a party. To do anything less than their fullest to compel Levandowski to give that information to Waymo would make Uber liable.
Its worth remembering that, at this point, this is only a civil suit, so among other things, silence can actually be used against you (adverse interference).
Its worth remembering that, at this point, this is only a civil suit, so among other things, silence can actually be used against you (adverse interference).
That's completely reasonable when it is an employee that isn't in a position where there is the possibility of criminal charges, but when there is, it's important that we give full gravity to the position we are putting the employee in. The lawyers really put it well by describing it as being between “the rock and the whirlpool".
Personally, one of criteria I would use to determine whether or not to take the 5th would depend on the general position of the public towards me. If the public generally thinks I am guilty before I've testified and they are generally taking in evidence and arriving at the conclusion that I'm guilty without truly considering the existing evidence, it'd would be stupid for me to testify.
I don't think there is a soul here that hasn't at least once had experiences where every one of their actions were viewed as having malicious intent by the peanut gallery. Once you experience such injustices firsthand as the accused, you learn empathy for others in similar circumstances quite quickly.
Personally, one of criteria I would use to determine whether or not to take the 5th would depend on the general position of the public towards me. If the public generally thinks I am guilty before I've testified and they are generally taking in evidence and arriving at the conclusion that I'm guilty without truly considering the existing evidence, it'd would be stupid for me to testify.
I don't think there is a soul here that hasn't at least once had experiences where every one of their actions were viewed as having malicious intent by the peanut gallery. Once you experience such injustices firsthand as the accused, you learn empathy for others in similar circumstances quite quickly.
legalese note: I think you mean "adverse inference", not "adverse interference". I only note this because "interference" is a word used in some legal jargon (e.g., "tortious interference"), so this typo could be confusing to others.
You're correct. That was a typo on my part.
[deleted]
probably a good move
>So yeah, it happens; it's just a spectacularly bad idea for the police to do it. If they hadn't declined to file charges, my friend and another murder victim would probably still be alive today
Sorry about your friend, but why is it a "spectacularly bad idea" for police to do so? What alternative do they have? If the sole victim is unwilling to cooperate with the investigation and subsequent trial, their chances of actually succeeding in imprisoning that scumbag are approximately zero. If you want to blame someone, go find the stupid, selfish woman who wanted to "let it drop" 5 years ago. Remember that old saying about evil flourishing because good people do nothing.
Sorry about your friend, but why is it a "spectacularly bad idea" for police to do so? What alternative do they have? If the sole victim is unwilling to cooperate with the investigation and subsequent trial, their chances of actually succeeding in imprisoning that scumbag are approximately zero. If you want to blame someone, go find the stupid, selfish woman who wanted to "let it drop" 5 years ago. Remember that old saying about evil flourishing because good people do nothing.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448155 and marked it off-topic.
[deleted]
Arizhel, I have never been subjected to rape and attempted strangulation myself. But someone that I know well has.
In the country that I live in, the justice system rightly requires that guilt in criminal cases is proved "beyond reasonable doubt". In court, the accused has every reason to allege that the alleged victim was "up for it" and "consenting" and "enjoyed it".
The victim who "lets it drop" in these circumstances may be selfish - but they aren't stupid when they weigh the cost to themselves of an adversarial court case against the gain to themselves of a rape conviction. In an ideal world all women would feel strong enough to testify in a rape case but maybe this isn't an ideal world.
Testifying that someone raped you isn't like testifying that someone stole your wallet. It's way more intimate and personal and dangerous.
To the thread starter - I am so sorry that your friend was raped and killed. Please look after yourself and talk to someone about how you are feeling.
In the country that I live in, the justice system rightly requires that guilt in criminal cases is proved "beyond reasonable doubt". In court, the accused has every reason to allege that the alleged victim was "up for it" and "consenting" and "enjoyed it".
The victim who "lets it drop" in these circumstances may be selfish - but they aren't stupid when they weigh the cost to themselves of an adversarial court case against the gain to themselves of a rape conviction. In an ideal world all women would feel strong enough to testify in a rape case but maybe this isn't an ideal world.
Testifying that someone raped you isn't like testifying that someone stole your wallet. It's way more intimate and personal and dangerous.
To the thread starter - I am so sorry that your friend was raped and killed. Please look after yourself and talk to someone about how you are feeling.
OK, but that still doesn't explain why it's a "spectacularly bad idea" for police/DA to not bother prosecuting in cases like this. What exactly are they supposed to do when they don't have a cooperative victim? Why is it not-stupid for the victim to avoid the costs of an adversarial court case, but it's stupid for the DA to avoid a case that he or she is guaranteed to lose?
My Dad was a police officer for 41 years and, by chance, he is visiting me. I read him your comments. Based on his 41 years of extremely high level investigative experience (including lead investigator in more sexual assaults than he cares to remember) , you literally don't know what you're talking about. He laughed at your comment and said, "Wow, another asshole armchair investigator with no experience."
First, the DA in the American system is not guaranteed to lose. Rather, unless the alleged perpetrator is extremely wealthy, the DA has a tremendous advantage. This is unbelievably common knowledge and something he picked up working closely with FBI and DEA agents.
Second, when you don't have a cooperative victim, a skilled investigator will investigate why. Often this happens because either the perpetrator made a very graphic threat and/or the victim suffers from post traumatic stress disorder. In this case, a highly skilled investigator would make sure that the victim had access to the best victim services people around.
Further to that, a skilled investigator/prosecutor combination will take steps to shield and protect the victim from an adversarial system. One common method would be to overcharge, announce they're going for a max sentence and plea down to avoid trial, while still guaranteeing a sentence, probation and sex offender registries.
There is your precious answer. Now, take some time to evaluate what kind of heartless asshole calls a victim 'stupid'.
First, the DA in the American system is not guaranteed to lose. Rather, unless the alleged perpetrator is extremely wealthy, the DA has a tremendous advantage. This is unbelievably common knowledge and something he picked up working closely with FBI and DEA agents.
Second, when you don't have a cooperative victim, a skilled investigator will investigate why. Often this happens because either the perpetrator made a very graphic threat and/or the victim suffers from post traumatic stress disorder. In this case, a highly skilled investigator would make sure that the victim had access to the best victim services people around.
Further to that, a skilled investigator/prosecutor combination will take steps to shield and protect the victim from an adversarial system. One common method would be to overcharge, announce they're going for a max sentence and plea down to avoid trial, while still guaranteeing a sentence, probation and sex offender registries.
There is your precious answer. Now, take some time to evaluate what kind of heartless asshole calls a victim 'stupid'.
Arizhel(1)
[deleted]
It's sad to see Uber destroy a talented engineer's credibility like this... Moment of silence for the man who once went out and built a self driving motorcycle on his own [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CYGT97i8qU
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CYGT97i8qU
I think he ruined his own credibility via mass theft of his precious employer's files.
His current employer is irrelevant.
Plus, "on his own" is not correct. Team Blue 2005 had nine members: http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/TechPapers/BlueTea...
His current employer is irrelevant.
Plus, "on his own" is not correct. Team Blue 2005 had nine members: http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/TechPapers/BlueTea...
Surprised that took this long. Hot potato dropped, now let's see where the damage claims will point.
I don't really understand how damages claims work. Can someone shed some light? No company has made any money off self driving cars. Google/Waymo has definitely not. How can they demonstrate damages?
Traditionally, damages in trade secret cases are calculated according to three metrics:
* Actual loss: the amount that the victim company lost in sales, customers, etc. because another company stole its trade secret. Here this is probably zero, since there are no self-driving cars in the market. (Although who knows, maybe Waymo lost partnership opportunities with large automakers to Uber)
* Reasonable royalties: hypothetically, if Uber licensed the allegedly stolen tech from Waymo, how much would they have paid?
* Unjust enrichment: benefit the Bad Guy got from the Bad Act(s), for example the amount of R&D that it didn't have to spend because it just shortcut the process.
Plus, in California, there's punitive damages available for twice the amount of damages. Which, if the facts are anything like what's alleged, Waymo will get.
The numbers add up fast.
* Actual loss: the amount that the victim company lost in sales, customers, etc. because another company stole its trade secret. Here this is probably zero, since there are no self-driving cars in the market. (Although who knows, maybe Waymo lost partnership opportunities with large automakers to Uber)
* Reasonable royalties: hypothetically, if Uber licensed the allegedly stolen tech from Waymo, how much would they have paid?
* Unjust enrichment: benefit the Bad Guy got from the Bad Act(s), for example the amount of R&D that it didn't have to spend because it just shortcut the process.
Plus, in California, there's punitive damages available for twice the amount of damages. Which, if the facts are anything like what's alleged, Waymo will get.
The numbers add up fast.
If Waymo can indeed prove that the stolen IP was a major motivation for the Otto acquisition, then the monetary value of that acquisition is a lower bound for the value of the stolen IP. A lower bound, because when a company acquires another company, it expects an ROI > 1.
In the end, in a lawsuit like this, you must come up with an economic model that quantifies the damage, and must convince the judge (or jury, or whoever awards the damage claims) to accept it. So it's also a question of psychology. If you can show that an action was morally outrageous, you have a better chance to get awarded a higher damage claim.
In the end, in a lawsuit like this, you must come up with an economic model that quantifies the damage, and must convince the judge (or jury, or whoever awards the damage claims) to accept it. So it's also a question of psychology. If you can show that an action was morally outrageous, you have a better chance to get awarded a higher damage claim.
It varies from claim to claim.
There are multiple types of damages for multiple claim types.
You'd have to be more specific :)
In general, "actual" damages are not the only thing in the world. If all you ever could get were "actual" damages, it would almost always be more efficient to breach contracts :)
In general, "actual" damages are not the only thing in the world. If all you ever could get were "actual" damages, it would almost always be more efficient to breach contracts :)
I think, basically, Uber will pay some $$$ to make the lawsuit go away and "license" Waymo's tech (which they already had, courtesy Mr. Lewandowski, but now will legally have it).
You don't think Google's out for blood? Didn't they announce a Waymo partnership with Lyft a couple of weeks ago?
I agree. Google doesn't want a license agreement. As pointed out below, yes, there is investment, but I think Google/Alphabet is out for blood and the investment dollars will be recouped in the civil settlement if not the arbitration with Levandowski.
Either way, I don't think Google cares. They want to be first on the market. And based on how badly Uber has been flouting the law, I suspect Google gets there first no matter what. This just slows Uber down.
It won't matter though. Money will change hands. And that's about it. Google/Alphabet/Waymo/Lyft will be first to market in a pretty shitty way, followed by Uber. The tech world and early adopters will go nuts and in this case probably die in a fire. Then Apple and Tesla will come in with a far superior safety/user experience and take over.
None of this really matters at this point. It's a waiting game. This is what Apple always does and what Tesla has started doing: wait for the early entries in the market to do their thing, learn from their mistakes, and pwn the market later with better UX and marketing.
Either way, I don't think Google cares. They want to be first on the market. And based on how badly Uber has been flouting the law, I suspect Google gets there first no matter what. This just slows Uber down.
It won't matter though. Money will change hands. And that's about it. Google/Alphabet/Waymo/Lyft will be first to market in a pretty shitty way, followed by Uber. The tech world and early adopters will go nuts and in this case probably die in a fire. Then Apple and Tesla will come in with a far superior safety/user experience and take over.
None of this really matters at this point. It's a waiting game. This is what Apple always does and what Tesla has started doing: wait for the early entries in the market to do their thing, learn from their mistakes, and pwn the market later with better UX and marketing.
I don't think that's the whole story.
If Google would let it be known that you can take a bunch of IP and walk out the front door to a competitor that would be a very expensive signal.
So for them this is as much about this concrete case as it is about how Google will deal with situation where their IP grows legs.
If Google would let it be known that you can take a bunch of IP and walk out the front door to a competitor that would be a very expensive signal.
So for them this is as much about this concrete case as it is about how Google will deal with situation where their IP grows legs.
> Early adopters will [...] probably die in a fire. Then [...] Tesla will come in with a far superior safety [...] and take over.
Well, for the moment, the record is exactly the opposite of that prediction.
Well, for the moment, the record is exactly the opposite of that prediction.
Google owns a chunk of Uber, so I'm not sure they'd want to wipe out their investment?
Yeah, doesn't Google have something like a 6.7% stake in Uber? Even with share diluation by half, at a $60bn valuation that's still $2bn. Do we really think Google can win much more than $2bn in this Waymo lawsuit?
That valuation is predicated on Uber still being worth that much, if they end up guilty in criminal proceedings (for example).
(Months of how much of a headstart they had * monthly cost of licensing their tech after it is finished)
That is how I would calculate it...
That is how I would calculate it...
With lawyers?
That too much longer than expected. What was Uber thinking?
From the start it was obvious that the interests of the employee and Uber's didn't align at all in that lawsuit.
The question now is, what did Uber know and when did it know it. Did Uber had contact with that employee when he was still working at Google? I wouldn't be surprised if Uber sued the guy in the future.
The question now is, what did Uber know and when did it know it. Did Uber had contact with that employee when he was still working at Google? I wouldn't be surprised if Uber sued the guy in the future.
Of course, whatever salary he was making is far less interesting than the direct benefit of the original Otto acquisition.
Levandowski got $250 million in Uber stock during the Otto acquisition and per a story on Techcrunch as of May 3rd, none of it had vested yet. Doesn't seem likely it will either.
If there is any justice, Google will claw back significant fractions of the $120M it paid him through arbitration. It's unacceptable for this guy to sail off into the sunset after doing what he has done (if indeed it is proven that he did it).
The leaked termination letter in the comments above indicates that he is being fired with cause, which means that he will get little or nothing at the end of all this.
Much/most of it was probably tied to his continued employment
Wouldn't that be the case only if his employment was that valuable? If the acquisition was purely for IP, his employment could just be a byproduct of that.
I was thinking simply, "too little, too late" but then realized this could be quite interesting.
Uber's model in most domains is to push hard over the line in the hopes of moving that line. More charitably this could be called "ask for forgiveness rather than permission". So canning Levendowski could be seen as simply a case of this.
But Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, who could now spill beans on all sorts of unsuspected malfeasance. At this point what has he got to lose? If he decides to cooperate with google things could get very interesting.
Uber's model in most domains is to push hard over the line in the hopes of moving that line. More charitably this could be called "ask for forgiveness rather than permission". So canning Levendowski could be seen as simply a case of this.
But Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, who could now spill beans on all sorts of unsuspected malfeasance. At this point what has he got to lose? If he decides to cooperate with google things could get very interesting.
> At this point what has he got to lose?
All of his money and perhaps his freedom. If he essentially sold Google property to Uber he could be on the hook to hand over all the money he made from doing it plus punitive damages, and some of the conduct that's been alleged against him could even rise to the level of criminal charges.
He's taking the 5th here for a reason. He stands to lose, literally, everything.
All of his money and perhaps his freedom. If he essentially sold Google property to Uber he could be on the hook to hand over all the money he made from doing it plus punitive damages, and some of the conduct that's been alleged against him could even rise to the level of criminal charges.
He's taking the 5th here for a reason. He stands to lose, literally, everything.
He's taking the 5th here for a reason, and that reason is that it is the advice that literally any lawyer will give you regardless of your guilt innocence.
That's patent nonsense.
It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that something very serious is going on.
When people sue each other they don't get to remain silent, they're subject to depositions, discovery, being put on the stand, and having to explain themselves. Your comment applies to criminal matters, it's not comparable at all.
It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that something very serious is going on.
When people sue each other they don't get to remain silent, they're subject to depositions, discovery, being put on the stand, and having to explain themselves. Your comment applies to criminal matters, it's not comparable at all.
The current case between Waymo and Uber is a civil dispute, but there is absolutely the possibility here of criminal charges being filed against Levandowski. It's already been referred to a federal prosecutor.
More: to take the 5th in a civil dispute that they aren't even a party to. That's extremely unusual - and in this case, it didn't fly.
Well, I mean, it did fly, in that he was not compelled (... directly?) by the court to testify. Which isn't to say it didn't have other consequences...
But Levandowski tried to get the court to not allow Waymo to discover who wrote the due diligence report. (Not just block Waymo from seeing the report - he tried to block Waymo from even learning who wrote it.) He did this by claiming the 5th. On a court case that he wasn't a party to.
And the judge didn't buy it (rightly, IMHO).
And the judge didn't buy it (rightly, IMHO).
Ah, yeah.
> It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that something very serious is going on.
Except in this case, we already know that "something very serious is going on" - there are obvious, substantial criminal implications to what Google is alleging.
"Don't say anything that might increase the chance of you going to trial" starts sounding quite a bit more reasonable, there, even if Levandowski is innocent.
Except in this case, we already know that "something very serious is going on" - there are obvious, substantial criminal implications to what Google is alleging.
"Don't say anything that might increase the chance of you going to trial" starts sounding quite a bit more reasonable, there, even if Levandowski is innocent.
He (most likely) forfeited his as of yet unvested $250 million in Uber stock he received as part of the acquisition. I suppose some innocent people would walk from $250 million on the advice of their lawyer, but not many.
Depending on how much he currently has wealth-wise, his reputation and credibility here might be worth much more than that in the long run.
He's still a bright engineer who could go on to do things in the self-driving car space. His expertise and exposure to the most cutting-edge IP is worth quite a bit. The less damage he gets out of this legally and the less dirt thrown on his name the more he will be able to turn that into real long term monetary value.
Not to mention the social costs.
If I was him I'd also being doing as much as possible to minimize the negative outcome of these legal proceedings for all who were involved with him.
I'd rather have, say, $20M plus a reasonable shot at making a lot of money in the future with a marginal reputation than risk my name being run through the dirt for a chance at $250M. Many smart people who had a shaky past have gone on to be successful. Talent/having the right skillset at the right time seems to trump (no pun intended) bad press ... in America especially.
He's still a bright engineer who could go on to do things in the self-driving car space. His expertise and exposure to the most cutting-edge IP is worth quite a bit. The less damage he gets out of this legally and the less dirt thrown on his name the more he will be able to turn that into real long term monetary value.
Not to mention the social costs.
If I was him I'd also being doing as much as possible to minimize the negative outcome of these legal proceedings for all who were involved with him.
I'd rather have, say, $20M plus a reasonable shot at making a lot of money in the future with a marginal reputation than risk my name being run through the dirt for a chance at $250M. Many smart people who had a shaky past have gone on to be successful. Talent/having the right skillset at the right time seems to trump (no pun intended) bad press ... in America especially.
If he is looking to protect his reputation, AND he is actually innocent, even at the expense of the money he should be wanting to tell his side of the story despite a lawyer telling him not to talk.
My, admittedly cynical, take is much simpler, his lawyer sat him down and said something along the lines of: "screw the 250 million, keep your damn mouth shut if you want to stay out of prison".
My, admittedly cynical, take is much simpler, his lawyer sat him down and said something along the lines of: "screw the 250 million, keep your damn mouth shut if you want to stay out of prison".
He should want to, perhaps, but being innocent does not inherently make saying anything a good legal idea given a potential future criminal case.
Sure, people get railroaded by the justice system all to often. But more often than not those are usually unfortunate souls with little ability to defend themselves accused of crimes far more heinous than stealing trade secrets.
For what Levandowski is accused of and how he is accused of doing it, there should be plenty of either incriminating or exculpatory evidence, if the parties involved want to divulge it. Google isn't some district attorney trying to look tough on crime for the voters, nobody outside of Google and Uber really care all that much about the case really care or which way it goes. Levandowski, by pleading the 5th has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion (yes, yes, shame on all of us) so he can't be clinging to whatever shreds of his reputation are left for future jobs.
It's not impossible that he is innocent and his lawyer thinks the best strategy is to plead the 5th anyway, I just don't happen to buy it myself.
For what Levandowski is accused of and how he is accused of doing it, there should be plenty of either incriminating or exculpatory evidence, if the parties involved want to divulge it. Google isn't some district attorney trying to look tough on crime for the voters, nobody outside of Google and Uber really care all that much about the case really care or which way it goes. Levandowski, by pleading the 5th has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion (yes, yes, shame on all of us) so he can't be clinging to whatever shreds of his reputation are left for future jobs.
It's not impossible that he is innocent and his lawyer thinks the best strategy is to plead the 5th anyway, I just don't happen to buy it myself.
There's nothing shameful about making inferences from his behavior in this case. It's reasonable and proper to assume someone taking the 5th in a civil case has something to hide.
I don't know much - but perhaps Google could make a deal with Levandowski that if he spills the beans on what Uber did, then Google won't go after him?
Google obviously has much more to gain by suing Uber than suing a dude. If Google needs information, and Levandowski has that information, it would seem to be a good deal.
But if there's also possible criminal proceedings, Levandowski would need to make a similar deal with the government too?
Google obviously has much more to gain by suing Uber than suing a dude. If Google needs information, and Levandowski has that information, it would seem to be a good deal.
But if there's also possible criminal proceedings, Levandowski would need to make a similar deal with the government too?
Eh. Waymo definitely worries about Uber as a competitor, and in general many people have a distaste for Uber's culture and values.
But there's still a pretty stark line between being a strategic competitor and being a scummy traitor who steals trade secrets and the labor of his coworkers. If it came down to a choice between shutting down Uber's self-driving car program and ruining Levandowski, I'm sure a lot of people would want to choose the latter, even though it's "irrational." Principles are important.
But there's still a pretty stark line between being a strategic competitor and being a scummy traitor who steals trade secrets and the labor of his coworkers. If it came down to a choice between shutting down Uber's self-driving car program and ruining Levandowski, I'm sure a lot of people would want to choose the latter, even though it's "irrational." Principles are important.
An individual, sure. But Google is too big to take the irrational vindictive option. I have to think they'd let Levandowski off the hook to shut down a competitor like this.
I'd expect the same. But I'd bet a majority of the individual actors, including those making the final decision, would really like to be able to take that vindictive option.
I have to imagine that google also wants to set a precedent that they won't tolerate people stealing their trade secrets.
Google currently is in arbitration with Levandowski, so the odds are relatively good they'll get both (positive outcomes from both suing Uber and pursuing AL).
Couldn't google offer him immunity of sorts in return for spilling the beans on Uber ?
They dont need to claw back the money, it is pocket change to them.
Restricting Uber from entering that market (on potentially near equal footing) is far more valuable.
I don't think Google can offer immunity since any criminal charges would be brought by the state.
Google could offer not to bring a civil suit against him, but it sounds like criminal charges are on the table and he's trying to avoid anything that might help that investigation.
Google could offer not to bring a civil suit against him, but it sounds like criminal charges are on the table and he's trying to avoid anything that might help that investigation.
In spite of what you see on TV, it's not up to a victim to decide whether or not to press criminal charges in the end. That's up to the attorney general usually.
Though police do often drop criminal charges if the victim is uncooperative.
Here's a recent example: a friend of mine was raped and strangled to death last month. They caught her alleged murderer last week. When the media got a hold of it, they found out that he had been accused of rape and attempted strangulation five years ago, but police decided not to press charges because the victim wanted to let it drop.
So yeah, it happens; it's just a spectacularly bad idea for the police to do it. If they hadn't declined to file charges, my friend and another murder victim would probably still be alive today.
Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/26/man-killed-...
Here's a recent example: a friend of mine was raped and strangled to death last month. They caught her alleged murderer last week. When the media got a hold of it, they found out that he had been accused of rape and attempted strangulation five years ago, but police decided not to press charges because the victim wanted to let it drop.
So yeah, it happens; it's just a spectacularly bad idea for the police to do it. If they hadn't declined to file charges, my friend and another murder victim would probably still be alive today.
Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/26/man-killed-...
[deleted]
I'm very sorry about your friend. That is an absolute tragedy.
Victims can choose not to cooperate with an investigation, which makes it much harder (and in some cases impossible) for a prosecution to proceed.
If all the relevant material is "spilled" in a civil trial that the victim is pursuing against someone else, the victim's cooperation in the criminal case is less likely to be needed.
Correct. See: Aaron Swartz (rest in peace)
If he has done what he has alleged to have done, he deserves to lose everything.
> But Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, who could now spill beans on all sorts of unsuspected malfeasance. At this point what has he got to lose?
His freedom. There's a reason he took the Fifth, and tried to force Uber not to release information to support that.
His freedom. There's a reason he took the Fifth, and tried to force Uber not to release information to support that.
>Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, who could now spill beans on all sorts of unsuspected malfeasance. At this point what has he got to lose? If he decides to cooperate with google things could get very interesting.
Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, because Uber has the capital to go after. I Am Not An IP Lawyer, but I'd guess that if Levendowski had substantial assets, he'd be named a party in the complaint.
My guess is that this firing is mainly a move to improve Uber's political capital "Look we fired the bad apple". I'd assume Uber has probably figured out how to tie his interests into cooperating with him (to the detriment of exposing IP theft) though maybe granting him equity or some sort of financial incentive.
Uber: Hey, we're really sorry that things didn't work out but "here's some equity for the time that you worked here" oh and by the way here's the estimated value of that equity if we win the lawsuit or don't win the law suit.
Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, because Uber has the capital to go after. I Am Not An IP Lawyer, but I'd guess that if Levendowski had substantial assets, he'd be named a party in the complaint.
My guess is that this firing is mainly a move to improve Uber's political capital "Look we fired the bad apple". I'd assume Uber has probably figured out how to tie his interests into cooperating with him (to the detriment of exposing IP theft) though maybe granting him equity or some sort of financial incentive.
Uber: Hey, we're really sorry that things didn't work out but "here's some equity for the time that you worked here" oh and by the way here's the estimated value of that equity if we win the lawsuit or don't win the law suit.
> My guess is that this firing is mainly a move to improve Uber's political capital "Look we fired the bad apple". I'd assume Uber has probably figured out how to tie his interests into cooperating with him (to the detriment of exposing IP theft) though maybe granting him equity or some sort of financial incentive.
Uber is complying with a court order to do their utmost to compel him to cooperate and testify. This is not political and it's also possible that they still don't want him to testify either way but they have to be seen to do the "right thing" in the eyes of the court.
Uber is complying with a court order to do their utmost to compel him to cooperate and testify. This is not political and it's also possible that they still don't want him to testify either way but they have to be seen to do the "right thing" in the eyes of the court.
Google's employment contract with Levendowski specified that all disputes are resolved by arbitration rather than court.
Does that apply now that he's no longer an employee there?
In short, yes. And there's currently an ongoing arbitration between Google and Levandowski separate from this suit.
Source? AFAIK, the suit was against Uber because Google's employment agreement means that they can target the company rather than the employee, but not the actual employee.
I can't think of a single incentive he would have to cooperate with Google's lawsuit.
Unless they promised to give him a large sum / stocks after everything is settled if he agrees not to talk.
In the USA legal system, this would be (at best) witness tampering and possibly obstruction of justice. Federal witness tampering and obstruction are things that _very_ few lawyers would knowingly participate in because you don't have to be successful to be convicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering
Uber: Hey, we're really sorry that things didn't work out but "here's some equity for the time that you worked here" oh and by the way here's the estimated value of that equity if we win the lawsuit or don't win the law suit.
Unlike a compiler that you can trick, the law operates on the intended spirit in addition to the letter of the statute and relevant precedent.
This "law hack" would be immediately caught by Waymo and Judge Alsop would rightfully penalize Uber. The corporate officers who signed off on an action like that would likely be criminally liable as well.
This "law hack" would be immediately caught by Waymo and Judge Alsop would rightfully penalize Uber. The corporate officers who signed off on an action like that would likely be criminally liable as well.
I'm not advocating for Uber to do what I said but given what's been written about their ethical practices, it's what I would expect from them.
The problem is, how do you differentiate between equity whose grant is meant to manipulate a party of a crime and equity justly earned by working there?
If I were Uber, I would fire him and if possible, revoke any equity he had to absolve the company from any accusations of implied manipulation.
The problem is, how do you differentiate between equity whose grant is meant to manipulate a party of a crime and equity justly earned by working there?
If I were Uber, I would fire him and if possible, revoke any equity he had to absolve the company from any accusations of implied manipulation.
Despite popular belief, the judiciary is in fact not a pack of nincompoops that can be trivially bypassed by a nudge and a wink...
Nor is the judiciary powerless against attempts to exploit loopholes, if they indeed exist.
"Muahahaha! The law is powerless against me and I can violate it with impunity by judicious word choice" is largely a fantasy.
Nor is the judiciary powerless against attempts to exploit loopholes, if they indeed exist.
"Muahahaha! The law is powerless against me and I can violate it with impunity by judicious word choice" is largely a fantasy.
You're replying to a comment that mentioned witness tampering, and your proposed solution is more witness tampering? You know those non-technical people who think themselves clever by suggesting "all they need to do is make the computer understand human speech, then..."? Yeah, that's what this thread probably sounds like to a lawyer or judge.
Would be tricky to pull off without a serious charge of "impeding justice".
Uber followed through on their public warning. Doesn't look good I must say.
Interesting. The situation between Uber and Levendowski always reminded me of the prisoner dilemma. If one bails on the other, might the other starts talking about what really happened? I think that staying together would have been the best course of action for Uber. Very interesting to see how this will develop.
If you talk about what happened it doesn't magically mean all the punishment falls on the other side. If Levendowski admits to breaking the law he'll be punished, no matter if he is or isn't friends with Uber at the time.
Depends. If the story is how Waymo pictured it (the entire acquisition was an orchestrated plan with Uber to take IPs out of Google), if I were Levandowski I'd be reaching out to Waymo and propose a deal. I'll give you information to crucify Uber but you let me go. I guess Waymo is after Uber more than a single engineer.
The only issue is Levandowski could still face criminal charges and, under the circumstances can he trust Waymo not to take every drop of that information and hand it over to the most proximate prosecutor?
[deleted]
This will probably be a case study eventually.
Only if Uber knew they had done something wrong. If not, bailing on him now just places the blame squarely on him.
OK:
Here is some context for those who aren't current on the case.
One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required
This is one part of a number of things that came out of preliminary injunction hearings, other parts are (1) the breadth of the case is much smaller than as originally filed, its now about trade secrets, not about patent infringement (2) Waymo is allowed a bit more indepth "discover" to see if they can find evidence of their tech in ubers documents or in ubers hardware itself.
Legally, there is no inference that can be drawn from this to imply uber is guilty, they have willfully carried out a court order.
Uber still has a self driving car program, that is staffed by a few hundred engineers.
The case against levandowski has been referred to a federal prosecutor to review the possiblity of criminal charges against levandowski, if I was his lawyer and he was in this position, I would likely refer him to "plead the fifth" regardless of his guilt.
The case is most definitely still going to trial
Here is some context for those who aren't current on the case.
One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required
This is one part of a number of things that came out of preliminary injunction hearings, other parts are (1) the breadth of the case is much smaller than as originally filed, its now about trade secrets, not about patent infringement (2) Waymo is allowed a bit more indepth "discover" to see if they can find evidence of their tech in ubers documents or in ubers hardware itself.
Legally, there is no inference that can be drawn from this to imply uber is guilty, they have willfully carried out a court order.
Uber still has a self driving car program, that is staffed by a few hundred engineers.
The case against levandowski has been referred to a federal prosecutor to review the possiblity of criminal charges against levandowski, if I was his lawyer and he was in this position, I would likely refer him to "plead the fifth" regardless of his guilt.
The case is most definitely still going to trial
One thing I've been confused about: didn't this whole thing start when a vendor sent an e-mail to Google that was intended for Uber, and the contents of the design in that e-mail were sufficiently similar to Google's designs that Google started this process. Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? Am I remembering or interpreting that story incorrectly?
From what I understand, no that isn't similar enough on its own. I do not understand this part of the law "very deeply" but basically, there are a few things that google needs to prove
[EDIT: NOTE BELOW](1) Levandowsky took information from google in some kind of physical way (files on a thumb drive, network transfer etc), it doesn't count if he just took the files by "memorizing" them in his brain
(2) The information that was stole was secret, and highly beneficial to google/waymo
(3) Levandowsky used the information that he stole to influence designs at uber, and specific uber designs can be traced back to information in those docs
Proving these 3 things in a civil case is tricky, that is why waymo is trying to get a lot of "discovery" which is basically the ability for google/waymo to gather information on ubers corporate network.
EDIT: (1) isn't true, but there are some strange edge cases around what stealing is, like, if levandowski is developing the state of the art stuff himself, and had been working on it since before waymo, what is his knowledge, and what is google/waymo's trade secrets?
[EDIT: NOTE BELOW](1) Levandowsky took information from google in some kind of physical way (files on a thumb drive, network transfer etc), it doesn't count if he just took the files by "memorizing" them in his brain
(2) The information that was stole was secret, and highly beneficial to google/waymo
(3) Levandowsky used the information that he stole to influence designs at uber, and specific uber designs can be traced back to information in those docs
Proving these 3 things in a civil case is tricky, that is why waymo is trying to get a lot of "discovery" which is basically the ability for google/waymo to gather information on ubers corporate network.
EDIT: (1) isn't true, but there are some strange edge cases around what stealing is, like, if levandowski is developing the state of the art stuff himself, and had been working on it since before waymo, what is his knowledge, and what is google/waymo's trade secrets?
Waymo says they have proof of #1 and #2.
We found that six weeks before his resignation this former employee, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems, including designs of Waymo’s LiDAR and circuit board. To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints.
Ref: https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-...
We found that six weeks before his resignation this former employee, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems, including designs of Waymo’s LiDAR and circuit board. To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints.
Ref: https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-...
After reading the transcript of the testimony on what Google actually knows about (1), it's actually less convincing in my opinion than Google's wording makes it sound (which is to be expected from lawyers making a case). I still believe Levandowski likely took trade secrets, but it's much less compelling when you read the details. There's a link to it in this HN comment[1], and I reply with what I think is a fair summary.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591
More specifically, the "specialized software" was TortoiseSVN, and the "downloaded over 14,000 ... downloaded 9.7 GB" was an SVN checkout.
An SVN client being used to access an SVN repository is hardly unusual, certainly not in the way insinuated by the wording presented.
An SVN client being used to access an SVN repository is hardly unusual, certainly not in the way insinuated by the wording presented.
If I recall, Google/Waymo claimed in their filing that he had never used the Subversion repository in question from that laptop in the course of his employment, until that moment. They further claim he actually searched MoMA for how to access it as well as how to do end-to-end setup. He then left not long after that checkout. That is unusual, if true.
Yes, but it was also a previously unused laptop, so it's not all that unusual for someone setting up a work system to make sure their work access is set up. It is odd that it happened towards the end, and that it wasn't used afterwards, but I can also see it being something I might do in preperation if I had to take a short trip and hadn't set up a remote work laptop yet or my prior one was causing problems. That it wasn't used might have been that he ended up not doing any work (or any work that required the laptop) during the period he wanted it. A single normal SVN checkout during the setup would get every file in the repo by default.
Basically, I don't think it's hard to construct an entirely innocent narrative of events (assuming SVN access was normal for him). The later developments do make it look fishy, but since I doubt anyone would have thought anything amiss with the list of actions without the later events, it's far from a smoking gun when taken by itself.
Basically, I don't think it's hard to construct an entirely innocent narrative of events (assuming SVN access was normal for him). The later developments do make it look fishy, but since I doubt anyone would have thought anything amiss with the list of actions without the later events, it's far from a smoking gun when taken by itself.
Google alleges he then copied the files onto a portable hard drive and wiped the laptop, which shows a pretty strong intent to deceive.
Sure, when it's summarized like that, it sounds bad, and it maybe bad. But compare that to this slightly expanded timeline summary from reading the actual filing[1]:
The laptop in question connected to Google only 3 times between March 2, 2015 and November 25, 2015, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes. ~ 2 hours on Oct 22, ~2 hours on Nov 20, and "briefly" on Nov 25. (My interpretation? It was almost always off and not in use).
Windows was reinstalled on Nov 26th.
On Dec 3, searched were done on Google's internal search system for how to log in and setup access through SVN to the driving car project ("chauffer").
Tortoise SVN was downloaded and installed on Dec 11. It then "downloaded over 14,000 files from the SVN repository". (My interpretation? A SVN checkout of the entire repo was done).
A USB card reader was attached on Dec 14 for about 8 hours.
On Dec 18, the laptop was reinstalled with Goobuntu (Google's custom Ubuntu).
The machine stayed on and checking in to Google normally from the time of the install until Dec 21, when it received a "machine certificate", within a minute of which it was not seen again on Google's networks, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes (My interpretation? It was off again).
The filing goes on to talk about some Google drive exports of documents that don't necessarily look good for Levandowski.
My purpose here isn't to convince anyone that he's innocent, just to point out that Google's allegations are worded in a way to cast the most suspicion while being technically true. Through the omission of the timeline it sounds like his actions were all taken at once, which looks a little more premeditated, when instead it was over a period of a couple weeks. It's entirely possibly that Levandowski purposefully obfuscated his actions by spreading them out temporally, so this isn't evidence he didn't do what is alleged, but I think it's important people have the facts before making judgments based on Waymo's lawyer's accounting, which is obviously as beneficial to Waymo as possible, as should be expected.
1: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515476-Declaration-...
The laptop in question connected to Google only 3 times between March 2, 2015 and November 25, 2015, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes. ~ 2 hours on Oct 22, ~2 hours on Nov 20, and "briefly" on Nov 25. (My interpretation? It was almost always off and not in use).
Windows was reinstalled on Nov 26th.
On Dec 3, searched were done on Google's internal search system for how to log in and setup access through SVN to the driving car project ("chauffer").
Tortoise SVN was downloaded and installed on Dec 11. It then "downloaded over 14,000 files from the SVN repository". (My interpretation? A SVN checkout of the entire repo was done).
A USB card reader was attached on Dec 14 for about 8 hours.
On Dec 18, the laptop was reinstalled with Goobuntu (Google's custom Ubuntu).
The machine stayed on and checking in to Google normally from the time of the install until Dec 21, when it received a "machine certificate", within a minute of which it was not seen again on Google's networks, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes (My interpretation? It was off again).
The filing goes on to talk about some Google drive exports of documents that don't necessarily look good for Levandowski.
My purpose here isn't to convince anyone that he's innocent, just to point out that Google's allegations are worded in a way to cast the most suspicion while being technically true. Through the omission of the timeline it sounds like his actions were all taken at once, which looks a little more premeditated, when instead it was over a period of a couple weeks. It's entirely possibly that Levandowski purposefully obfuscated his actions by spreading them out temporally, so this isn't evidence he didn't do what is alleged, but I think it's important people have the facts before making judgments based on Waymo's lawyer's accounting, which is obviously as beneficial to Waymo as possible, as should be expected.
1: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515476-Declaration-...
Thanks for writing this up. The court of public opinion IMO should adhere to "innocent until proven guilty," and summaries like yours are the only things that make that possible.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal one, so the standard of judgment at play is "preponderance of evidence", not "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The summary does seem to make it pretty clear which way the preponderance of evidence goes. That'd be an awful lot of coincidences to have all that stuff lining up in one particular way -- it just seems unlikely.
The summary does seem to make it pretty clear which way the preponderance of evidence goes. That'd be an awful lot of coincidences to have all that stuff lining up in one particular way -- it just seems unlikely.
Sure, Google's interpretation is not particularly generous. But even the most charitable reading of the facts would find that Levandowski downloaded the files to an external disk, relatively close to when he left the company.
All of that is bad for Levandowski, but it's unclear if any of those files got used by Uber, which is where the case may very well fizzle out.
All of that is bad for Levandowski, but it's unclear if any of those files got used by Uber, which is where the case may very well fizzle out.
> But even the most charitable reading of the facts would find that Levandowski downloaded the files to an external disk
Actually, no. All they have is that a few days after an SVN sync, a USB card reader was attached for 8 hours. There is no evidence presented that he actually copied any files, much less the synced SVN files, to whatever was connected with the USB card reader. He could have plugged it in to copy his personal SSH keys to the machine and left it in until he left for the day for all we know.
There is separate information that he exported a single Google Drive file to a personal device on January 11, titled "Chauffer TL Weekly Updates - Q4 2015". There are further logs about other high level engineers that subsequently left that also exported Google Drive files to personal devices prior to leaving as well.
Actually, no. All they have is that a few days after an SVN sync, a USB card reader was attached for 8 hours. There is no evidence presented that he actually copied any files, much less the synced SVN files, to whatever was connected with the USB card reader. He could have plugged it in to copy his personal SSH keys to the machine and left it in until he left for the day for all we know.
There is separate information that he exported a single Google Drive file to a personal device on January 11, titled "Chauffer TL Weekly Updates - Q4 2015". There are further logs about other high level engineers that subsequently left that also exported Google Drive files to personal devices prior to leaving as well.
Can you show me where in the expert testimony this is? I haven't yet found this exact allegation myself. I've seen the media parrot this over and over again.
The expert testimony identified a specific model card reader attached to the computer a full three days later. It didn't say that a memory card was ever inserted into the card reader and mounted a logical volume. Nor did the expert testimony mention any files copied to an external drive. The have an expert testimony with specific details from logs about a card reader being inserted but no specific details about a storage device or files being copied? Does the lack of these details but specificity of other details not strike anyone else as odd?
The only copying of files that were specifically identified in the expert testimony was the copying of about a half dozen files to Google drive. That's it. I'm not saying that there isn't the possibility of wrongdoing, but the expert testimony certainly doesn't support the allegations enough to meet the criteria of "preponderance of evidence" for me at least. The testimony definitely doesn't meet the criteria of being a smoking gun, yet that is how it has been reported.
The expert testimony identified a specific model card reader attached to the computer a full three days later. It didn't say that a memory card was ever inserted into the card reader and mounted a logical volume. Nor did the expert testimony mention any files copied to an external drive. The have an expert testimony with specific details from logs about a card reader being inserted but no specific details about a storage device or files being copied? Does the lack of these details but specificity of other details not strike anyone else as odd?
The only copying of files that were specifically identified in the expert testimony was the copying of about a half dozen files to Google drive. That's it. I'm not saying that there isn't the possibility of wrongdoing, but the expert testimony certainly doesn't support the allegations enough to meet the criteria of "preponderance of evidence" for me at least. The testimony definitely doesn't meet the criteria of being a smoking gun, yet that is how it has been reported.
> Does the lack of these details but specificity of other details not strike anyone else as odd?
Not particularly. There's only so much they can log easily by tying into the system. Card reader insertions are easily tracked through OS level event logs in most operating systems, but generating a log entry for every file copy that happens is quite another level of granularity.
It's sort of like street level cameras. They may catch someone going into a a house or business, but unless you have prior knowledge that there is a camera inthe house or business that the state should have access to, omission of footage of what happened inside does not insinuate that something is being omitted on purpose.
> The only copying of files that were specifically identified in the expert testimony was the copying of about a half dozen files to Google drive.
Yep, and only one of them was by Levandowski. "Chauffer TL Weekly Updates - Q4 2015"
There's only so much that the expert testimony was able to establish. But what it did do was get the judge to authorize more discovery, so Google will apparently get a lot of data from Uber to search through to find their smoking gun, if it exists.
Not particularly. There's only so much they can log easily by tying into the system. Card reader insertions are easily tracked through OS level event logs in most operating systems, but generating a log entry for every file copy that happens is quite another level of granularity.
It's sort of like street level cameras. They may catch someone going into a a house or business, but unless you have prior knowledge that there is a camera inthe house or business that the state should have access to, omission of footage of what happened inside does not insinuate that something is being omitted on purpose.
> The only copying of files that were specifically identified in the expert testimony was the copying of about a half dozen files to Google drive.
Yep, and only one of them was by Levandowski. "Chauffer TL Weekly Updates - Q4 2015"
There's only so much that the expert testimony was able to establish. But what it did do was get the judge to authorize more discovery, so Google will apparently get a lot of data from Uber to search through to find their smoking gun, if it exists.
Yeah, I wouldn't expect logs for every file, but I would expect logs for the insertion of a card into the card reader and mounting a logical volume from that card. How big was the card/volume, if any? And if there even was one, was it even big enough to hold the entirety of that repo.
Also, while copying isn't auditable on windows, windows can audit object reads and writes. Were there any logs showing that the directory with the files were read while the card reader was inserted into the machine? It's off by default however. Does anyone know the default audit settings of a new google windows installation to know what folders it turns on logging for if any?
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc976403.aspx
These are all issues and details I would expect to be mentioned in an expert's report if they weren't trying to be selective in the details they provided. Since this expert works for Google, omitting details in Google's favor wouldn't surprise me. I didn't see any statement in the expert's report where they had to make a statement under oath where they declare that they aren't omitting any other details that may be relevant to the court. Without such a declaration, it's possible to be truthful, but deceptive without perjuring yourself.
Also, while copying isn't auditable on windows, windows can audit object reads and writes. Were there any logs showing that the directory with the files were read while the card reader was inserted into the machine? It's off by default however. Does anyone know the default audit settings of a new google windows installation to know what folders it turns on logging for if any?
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc976403.aspx
These are all issues and details I would expect to be mentioned in an expert's report if they weren't trying to be selective in the details they provided. Since this expert works for Google, omitting details in Google's favor wouldn't surprise me. I didn't see any statement in the expert's report where they had to make a statement under oath where they declare that they aren't omitting any other details that may be relevant to the court. Without such a declaration, it's possible to be truthful, but deceptive without perjuring yourself.
Well, if he has a rock-solid benign explanation, why doesn't he come on the stand and testify?
Despite what you learned as a kid, you can get caught in a lie when you tell the truth. Part of the "game" of adversarial court is trying to get as many legally admissible statements from opposing witnesses as possible. Once enough statements have been entered into evidence, lawyers find contradictions - it doesn't matter how small. Humans don't say the exact same thing every time - it's not too hard to create the appearance of a contradiction where none exists - and sometimes prosecutors get it wrong and think they hear a contradiction where none exists. Good defense lawyers keep their clients (innocent or guilty) out of the witness box as much as possible.
Seeing as how the expert testimony is far from being in the least bit conclusive but allegations were presented as such, it's not hard to see why it is best to say nothing. Every word you utter will be used against you in the least charitable way possible, especially when the court of public opinion already thinks you're guilty.
[deleted]
Taking the fifth is not automatically a sign of guilt despite what some people might think.
As I understand it it's not out of the realm of possibility for a lawyer to advise doing so even for completely innocent clients. It's not hard to get tripped up on the stand and sound guilty even when you aren't.
As I understand it it's not out of the realm of possibility for a lawyer to advise doing so even for completely innocent clients. It's not hard to get tripped up on the stand and sound guilty even when you aren't.
This. The video Don't Talk to the Police[0] has several concrete examples of how not taking the fifth amendment can be to your disadvantage.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
This is not a criminal proceeding.
It's one thing to take the fifth out of an abundance of caution when all it might do is raise some suspicion. It's another thing when doing so is likely to cost you $250MM. It's hard to look at this course of events and conclude that Levandowski probably did nothing wrong.
Reminds me of the "accessed X thousand confidential documents" in the Carmack trial, as a way of saying "copied his mbox file."
Part of the problem for Uber is that, as is standard in acquisitions, Uber commissioned a due diligence report to try to determine the odds there was stolen IP involved when they were thinking of buying Levandowski's company.
Now that ought to be evidence that Uber could use in its defense. Instead, Uber is going to extrordinary lengths to try to keep it out of the trial.
Now that ought to be evidence that Uber could use in its defense. Instead, Uber is going to extrordinary lengths to try to keep it out of the trial.
Sure. I'm not coming in on the side of Uber, I'm just calling into question the idea of taking Google's initial allegations, and the assumptions that are often made from them, as evidence instead of the actual filing which paints the story slightly differently.
Personally, I suspect we'll eventually fine out that Levandoswki - and others, check the filing - did steal trade secrets.
Personally, I suspect we'll eventually fine out that Levandoswki - and others, check the filing - did steal trade secrets.
Are you sure about (1)? I believe you can steal trade secrets even if you don't take them in an embodied form.
It is true that you can't prevent someone from practicing their profession under the terms of California employment law (other states vary) -- but if you take reasonable steps to protect your trade secrets, the employees can be bound to honor that secrecy by not disclosing them to future employers.
Source: I've been involved in a trade secret dispute (it was nonsense but annoying), and I am definitely not a lawyer.
It is true that you can't prevent someone from practicing their profession under the terms of California employment law (other states vary) -- but if you take reasonable steps to protect your trade secrets, the employees can be bound to honor that secrecy by not disclosing them to future employers.
Source: I've been involved in a trade secret dispute (it was nonsense but annoying), and I am definitely not a lawyer.
(1) is definitely not true. Memorized trade secrets can be misappropriated, if they were covered by an NDA. It just makes it harder to determine what is a trade secret if there isn't any concert documents or prototypes stolen.
> didn't this whole thing start when a vendor sent an e-mail to Google that was intended for Uber, and the contents of the design in that e-mail were sufficiently similar to Google's designs that Google started this process.
Yes.
> Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP?
It may well be, at trial, in court.
> Am I remembering or interpreting the story incorrectly?
No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true to the extent required for a civil case.
Yes.
> Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP?
It may well be, at trial, in court.
> Am I remembering or interpreting the story incorrectly?
No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true to the extent required for a civil case.
> No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence required in a criminal case. The standard of evidence required in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence". This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than untrue (ie >50% chance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponde...
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence required in a criminal case. The standard of evidence required in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence". This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than untrue (ie >50% chance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponde...
Oh weird I thought this was a criminal case. Thanks!
Since it's a civil case, won't it only have to be demostrated to be more likely then not? I thought 'beyond reasonable doubt' was only the bar for criminal cases.
Yes my bad!
[deleted]
[deleted]
That vendor's email is probably the most expensive email mistake ever made. I wonder if he sent it to the old Levandowsky (Google) email that his email system probably autopopulated?
It's very common for hardware vendors and hardware teams to have extremely long email chains where they copy everyone involved for the length of the project. I imagine that the vendor copied the old Google colleagues by mistake.
Misdirected emails happen. I was even recently called by a vendor on my cell phone (side effect of open offices: no office phone) for an old company that wanted to talk about the sensors they were using for a new project. The vendor still thought I worked there even two years after leaving.
Misdirected emails happen. I was even recently called by a vendor on my cell phone (side effect of open offices: no office phone) for an old company that wanted to talk about the sensors they were using for a new project. The vendor still thought I worked there even two years after leaving.
It's crazy how common this is in even very sensitive cases. There should be a rule based system in place that makes it troublesome to email people not associated to a certain project.
You mean this feature of Outlook? https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/microsoft_press/2013/04/29/...
A mailing list?
I remember the vendor contacting Google ( Waymo), because Uber has similar designs. An email to Uber was send to a colleague at Google, when he was still employed there
> Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP?
It's doubtful whether this will be even admitted as evidence.
It's doubtful whether this will be even admitted as evidence.
The court can't order a private entity to fire a private employee. They did this because they know they are probably going to lose this case, and it will be harder for Waymo to show that Uber's conduct was willful now that they have fired the main person involved. They want to be able to say "as soon as we were sure that some of this was stolen, we fired the person that did it". That may make a settlement more palatable to Waymo, or potentially decrease the damages awarded to them by a jury if it goes to trial.
The court can (and did) order Uber to:
> immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court) by MAY 31 AT NOON [1]
---
I believe that authority includes firing him if he did not comply.
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3722249/Uber-Inju...
> immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court) by MAY 31 AT NOON [1]
---
I believe that authority includes firing him if he did not comply.
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3722249/Uber-Inju...
How do you return a downloaded file without copying it?
You're thinking like an engineer. You probably also think that playing a video creates a copy just because it does. You probably also think Aereo's business model was legal just because it technically obeyed all of the laws.
By returning the storage medium it is on?
Pretty simple: turn over the computer and/or devices it is on.
Don't all corporate punishments include the clause "up to and including termination"?
If the court is compelling Uber to produce documents and/or information, and if those documents/information are in the hands on one employee, then the courts are compelling Uber to compel employee. That's Uber's card to play, "punishment, up to and including termination".
The court didn't order Uber to fire Levandowski, it ask Uber to do everything within its power to produce documents/information.
If the court is compelling Uber to produce documents and/or information, and if those documents/information are in the hands on one employee, then the courts are compelling Uber to compel employee. That's Uber's card to play, "punishment, up to and including termination".
The court didn't order Uber to fire Levandowski, it ask Uber to do everything within its power to produce documents/information.
Actually, they did it because the judge suggested it. There was no other practical way for Uber to comply with the court's orders in light of Levandowski's pleading the Fifth.
Source: https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Uber.Waym... (page 23, footnote 9).
Source: https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Uber.Waym... (page 23, footnote 9).
They didn't do this "because they are probably going to lose the case" they did this because the judge instructed them to.
Its also entirely unclear if they will actually lose the case or not. Comments made in the PI ruling make it seem very ambiguous, and it will hinge on the results of further discovery. If no new relevant evidence is found in discover, uber will be found innocent.
Its also entirely unclear if they will actually lose the case or not. Comments made in the PI ruling make it seem very ambiguous, and it will hinge on the results of further discovery. If no new relevant evidence is found in discover, uber will be found innocent.
Questions...
This is civil, so a preponderance of evidence is the burden here. Can he fight that at all without talking? Google has a ton of evidence that he 'downloaded' a lot of stuff. It's not a big jump to see Otto/Uber made a tremendous amount of progress pretty rapidly too. I'm not the judge but being an engineer, knowing other engineers, hearing Google's story about the data he took, seeing the dollar figures, it seems damning. What evidence is there to the other side if he won't explain things?
This is civil, so a preponderance of evidence is the burden here. Can he fight that at all without talking? Google has a ton of evidence that he 'downloaded' a lot of stuff. It's not a big jump to see Otto/Uber made a tremendous amount of progress pretty rapidly too. I'm not the judge but being an engineer, knowing other engineers, hearing Google's story about the data he took, seeing the dollar figures, it seems damning. What evidence is there to the other side if he won't explain things?
> This is civil, so a preponderance of evidence is the burden here. Can he fight that at all without talking?
Pleading the fifth in a civil case can be used as a negative inference, so if you're not prepared to talk and the other side has evidence it's going to be an uphill struggle at best.
Pleading the fifth in a civil case can be used as a negative inference, so if you're not prepared to talk and the other side has evidence it's going to be an uphill struggle at best.
Fair enough. I don't know what role Uber played in how they hired/acquired Levandowski. The lesson I take away is, don't be a liability to your employer - Though that was kind of my prior to begin with.
[deleted]
One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required
How does firing him equate to pressuring him to testify?
How does firing him equate to pressuring him to testify?
"If you don't testify or produce documents, we're going to fire you."
"I still refuse to testify."
"Alright, you're fired."
That's all they can do.
"I still refuse to testify."
"Alright, you're fired."
That's all they can do.
[deleted]
What else would you have them do? Jail him? Torture him? The company has limited tools at its disposal the ultimate one being to fire the person.
Although for the sake of this discussion I agree with you, I could have a lot of fun making a list entitled, "things companies have done to people that are worse than firing them."
And most of those things would also go on a list called "illegal things companies have done".
Probably not a good idea to do something illegal in the middle of a lawsuit.
Probably not a good idea to do something illegal in the middle of a lawsuit.
http://lostinjapan.groth.hm/archives/2010/04/sitting-at-the-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/business/global/layoffs-il...
Legend has it that Japanese companies, rather than terminate under-performing employees, will seat them "at the window" and not assign them any tasks at all ... This is not terribly compelling short-term, but is horribly boring .
Legend has it that Japanese companies, rather than terminate under-performing employees, will seat them "at the window" and not assign them any tasks at all ... This is not terribly compelling short-term, but is horribly boring .
Played well, that sounds like a good way to get your side project off the ground. Then again, I imagine the cross section of under-performing employees that get this treatment and those that are ambitious enough to follow through on an idea for a side project/business is probably quite small.
Also, you probably would have to hide all the work, since depending on your contract your employer would probably have some claim to it, since it was during work hours.
Also, you probably would have to hide all the work, since depending on your contract your employer would probably have some claim to it, since it was during work hours.
I would love to get 'put on the roof' like that, but I think the Japanese policy also states that you're not allowed to do anything outside of the ridiculously mundane task they assign you, and they actually watch you like a hawk to ensure as such. Pretty smart, most people aren't going to stay in that situation for long.
Could you imagine being the manager assigned to watch such employees? That's a special hell.
I once worked at a newspaper, when "online" was new and side project of the marketing department so that they could sell more ads.
Until I automated things, we were cutting and pasting a few articles each night from Quark into BBEdit and hand-massaging it into HTML templates for upload. They assigned us an "editor". Poor guy had written pro-civil-rights editorials at a time when that didn't go over well. Got assigned shit jobs for decades to try and force him out. We didn't create new content; there was nothing to edit. But, they made him go to all the meetings and report that each day. Dude used a giant trackball and knew nothing about tech, but somehow landed in the department that would one day rule the newsroom. I wonder how he's doing these days.
I once worked at a newspaper, when "online" was new and side project of the marketing department so that they could sell more ads.
Until I automated things, we were cutting and pasting a few articles each night from Quark into BBEdit and hand-massaging it into HTML templates for upload. They assigned us an "editor". Poor guy had written pro-civil-rights editorials at a time when that didn't go over well. Got assigned shit jobs for decades to try and force him out. We didn't create new content; there was nothing to edit. But, they made him go to all the meetings and report that each day. Dude used a giant trackball and knew nothing about tech, but somehow landed in the department that would one day rule the newsroom. I wonder how he's doing these days.
> Could you imagine being the manager assigned to watch such employees?
What do you think they do with the managers they want to fire? ;)
What do you think they do with the managers they want to fire? ;)
Why they don't fire the person? This is ridiculously sleazy.
It's a huge cultural taboo to fire anyone without cause in Japan. And even if you do have cause, there's a pretty high bar for what actually constitutes cause. It would be a huge scandal if a Japanese company, especially a large salaryman-style company, fired an employee for anything less than stabbing a coworker.
Hell, even in the entertainment industry, where employment is gig-based, Masashi Tashiro didn't get blackballed until he was convicted twice for voyeurism, twice for drug abuse, once for nearly crippling a guy in a car accident he caused, and once for posessing an illegal weapon [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masashi_Tashiro#Second_trial_f...
Hell, even in the entertainment industry, where employment is gig-based, Masashi Tashiro didn't get blackballed until he was convicted twice for voyeurism, twice for drug abuse, once for nearly crippling a guy in a car accident he caused, and once for posessing an illegal weapon [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masashi_Tashiro#Second_trial_f...
In these Japanese companies they'll be sorta monitoring you and fire you if you're caught not doing the mundane tasks they've assigned you. So they basically force you to quite or get fired.
If firing is an option, why wouldn't they do so in the first place?
Presumably it's the difference between firing with cause and firing without cause. There are many positions where performance is measured pretty ambiguously, so if you want to get rid of someone you couldn't demonstrate strong cause for doing so. Make them do pointless simple make-work, though, and you can easily find cause for firing if they don't do it.
Firing someone for performance isn't a thing in Japan.
The "pointless simple make-work" isn't to build up cause, it's to abuse and degrade them until they have enough of it and quit. The technical term for this is "constructive dismissal".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
The "pointless simple make-work" isn't to build up cause, it's to abuse and degrade them until they have enough of it and quit. The technical term for this is "constructive dismissal".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
Your explanation is missing a nuance in the comment I was replying to -- namely, that people were being fired for not doing the pointless simple make-work. If you're going to fire them for that, why not just fire them in the first place and skip that entirely.
Not sure if it's typically the case in Japanese custom, but there are a number of scenarios where a person forfeits certain compensation by quitting that they would otherwise be entitled to if they're fired. So if the company can get rid of them by making them think it was their idea, the company saves on severance / recoups equity, etc.
[deleted]
There are many ways to make an employee's life worse without doing anything illegal. You tend to see them in dysfunctional companies.
Yes, but usually not in the middle of lawsuits that spell 'doom' in large letters for the eventual loser(s).
Uber has one and one chance only to get this behind them: to play by the book and to ask 'how high' when the judge tells them to jump. If they try anything funny they can expect the ROI of that to be substantial and negative.
Uber has one and one chance only to get this behind them: to play by the book and to ask 'how high' when the judge tells them to jump. If they try anything funny they can expect the ROI of that to be substantial and negative.
I agree, but the topic had diverged somewhat.
OT, have you noticed an increase in superfluous downvoting? I'm not really complaining, just trying to figure out if I'm imagining it or if it's randomness doing its thing.
Since HN has become so much bigger, I wonder if the mods could scale down the effect of downvoting. E.g. make it take two downvotes to make a comment appear at 0.
OT, have you noticed an increase in superfluous downvoting? I'm not really complaining, just trying to figure out if I'm imagining it or if it's randomness doing its thing.
Since HN has become so much bigger, I wonder if the mods could scale down the effect of downvoting. E.g. make it take two downvotes to make a comment appear at 0.
Happens all the time, I wouldn't worry about it, just ignore it.
Ok, I wrote a tampermonkey extension to hide the effects of being downvoted: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/9d681310f4714277a37832643c...
It removes scores from your comments and replaces your karma counter with "(9999)".
HN is much more pleasant now.
It removes scores from your comments and replaces your karma counter with "(9999)".
HN is much more pleasant now.
Hah, that's a cool solution.
I submitted a better version at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14456200
Here is an example from a previous job.
The location was a factory for a company you have heard of. Temporary employees were 99 and 44/100% of the workforce. One staffing agency, call it Agency A, had the main contract for the site and they were required to give some of the work to their competitors. It was policy to assign temps from other agencies impossible schedules so that they would quit and be replaced by temps from Agency A.
The location was a factory for a company you have heard of. Temporary employees were 99 and 44/100% of the workforce. One staffing agency, call it Agency A, had the main contract for the site and they were required to give some of the work to their competitors. It was policy to assign temps from other agencies impossible schedules so that they would quit and be replaced by temps from Agency A.
Companies can do worse things than firing people, but it's hard to legally compel them to do so.
[deleted]
It also probably means that Levandowski loses some or all of his compensation for Uber's acquisition of Otto, right?
From what I recall, that purchase was made in Uber stock, and I'd expect it to have a vesting schedule. Depending on the length of the initial cliff, it seems possible that he hasn't vested any of that stock. I am speculating though and don't know for sure.
From what I recall, that purchase was made in Uber stock, and I'd expect it to have a vesting schedule. Depending on the length of the initial cliff, it seems possible that he hasn't vested any of that stock. I am speculating though and don't know for sure.
My understanding is that the vesting started when he left Google/Waymo. Uber made vesting retroactive back to Otto's nominal start date. This has been called out by Waymo's lawyers.
Of course, if it is the case that Otto was built on misappropriated trade secrets, and Levandowski lied to Uber about that during the acquisition, then we might well see some of that clawed back in a separate lawsuit.
You could fire him and then write a public post explaining that he was fired because of rank incompetence and unethical dealings. Just saying.
(IANAL but if I were I would probably not counsel doing that in any case. :-P )
(IANAL but if I were I would probably not counsel doing that in any case. :-P )
[deleted]
A bit pedantic maybe: firing him doesn't pressure him, but threatening to fire him does. And it's not a threat if they don't eventually do it.
Interesting. Could Levandowski throw Uber under the bus without incriminating himself?
Additionally, I wonder if Uber has clawback agreements in place for their Otto acquisition.
Additionally, I wonder if Uber has clawback agreements in place for their Otto acquisition.
Probably not. The biggest hurdle here is that it was Levandowski who took the documents on his own initiative. Even if he'd been asked by someone high up at Uber to steal the information he might escape criminal prosecution but he'd never keep his money.
What if Uber is actually innocent? I've always just assumed they are guilty and planned this all along.
> What if Uber is actually innocent?
If an ex employee of a company making a competing product walked into my office with a large treasure trove of files I would not automatically assume that he had re-created those files in his spare time.
Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising.
If an ex employee of a company making a competing product walked into my office with a large treasure trove of files I would not automatically assume that he had re-created those files in his spare time.
Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising.
>Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising
Should be fun when the due diligence docs come out, and we get Uber's view of how Otto went from a value of zero to $680M in 7 months, with only legitimate IP, 5 Trucks, and 90 employees.
Should be fun when the due diligence docs come out, and we get Uber's view of how Otto went from a value of zero to $680M in 7 months, with only legitimate IP, 5 Trucks, and 90 employees.
This. How is this not the main crux of the argument for Uber's being complicit in the IP theft?
I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if Uber could argue:
1.) At the time of acquisition, Levandowski was one of the world's leading experts on self driving technology.
2.) As one of the world's leading experts, Levandowski was able to recruit an incredible team.
3.) Self driving technology could be worth trillions and, in Uber's particular case, it would remove one of their biggest cost centres, thus making their business instantly profitable.
1.) At the time of acquisition, Levandowski was one of the world's leading experts on self driving technology.
2.) As one of the world's leading experts, Levandowski was able to recruit an incredible team.
3.) Self driving technology could be worth trillions and, in Uber's particular case, it would remove one of their biggest cost centres, thus making their business instantly profitable.
Aqui-hire. Google already established Levandowski as a hundred-millon dollar man, didn't they?
It's complete BS but that's the reason for the valuation, he can do it, Google already paid him that much and he 'wanted to do his own thing,' it's going to cost you to hire that guy.
Can you even spin up and staff a company in that time frame and integrate a lot of the technical parts in to something very meaningful in 9 months? With custom hardware and stuff that seems insanely tight (but there is a lot of money at play, you push hard) Even if there are off the shelf components that do most of the work and they're pre-integrated that seems insanely aggressive. I can only assume Otto didn't have any IP of real value other than a staff.
It's complete BS but that's the reason for the valuation, he can do it, Google already paid him that much and he 'wanted to do his own thing,' it's going to cost you to hire that guy.
Can you even spin up and staff a company in that time frame and integrate a lot of the technical parts in to something very meaningful in 9 months? With custom hardware and stuff that seems insanely tight (but there is a lot of money at play, you push hard) Even if there are off the shelf components that do most of the work and they're pre-integrated that seems insanely aggressive. I can only assume Otto didn't have any IP of real value other than a staff.
To be fair, Uber says that they didn't know about Levandowski (allegedly) downloading the docs from Google. We'll find out once they get through discovery.
Otto had existed for long enough at that point that you could, in theory, believe that he'd re-created those over the lifetime of Otto.
But even then I'd agree that they're probably guilty of "intentionally not thinking too hard about it", at the very least.
But even then I'd agree that they're probably guilty of "intentionally not thinking too hard about it", at the very least.
Frankly I don't buy it, not even a little bit. I do DD for a living with some regularity and if someone popped up with that much IP in such a short time I would spend a lot of time on the origin story of that IP and I really would like to have a chat with the magical 1000x developers that they employed.
It is beyond suspicious, but then again, maybe pigs really can fly.
It is beyond suspicious, but then again, maybe pigs really can fly.
According to various documents that Google has submitted to the courts, Uber was talking with Levandowski before he had even left Google.
https://www.axios.com/analysis-uber-gets-bruised-though-not-...
https://www.axios.com/analysis-uber-gets-bruised-though-not-...
Otto went from zero to hero in ~7 months. Assuming that talks of a $800M company acquisition take some time and you don't build a company overnight (hiring and ramping up something like 90 employees), how long was really spent in R&D mode? 3 months? 4? Compared to years of R&D from other companies in the same space seems like a big stretch.
Have we established that Uber knew about the files?
If you invest in / buy a company for its IP then you normally - especially when the field is 'hot' and the IP is voluminous and created in record time - do some research to verify the origin of the IP is in fact what the company says it is. If you forgo such a check then you open yourself up to two potential problems:
- if the IP ends up being stolen then you may not have recourse against the person that sold it to you
- if the IP ends up being stolen you might end up being liable yourself because you did not do the minimum verification required to ascertain that the seller indeed had the rights to sell
That changes the game from 'we've been had' to 'we were willing participants' and that's a very dumb position to be in.
- if the IP ends up being stolen then you may not have recourse against the person that sold it to you
- if the IP ends up being stolen you might end up being liable yourself because you did not do the minimum verification required to ascertain that the seller indeed had the rights to sell
That changes the game from 'we've been had' to 'we were willing participants' and that's a very dumb position to be in.
While that's all true, it seems entirely unrelated. If Levandowski stole "a large treasure trove of files" but then drew information judiciously from those files in creating Otto's IP, Uber might not have been much able to pick that apart - and in particular, your characterization would be grossly misleading.
There would still be a discrepancy in that they would be moving much faster than they would have if they started from scratch. The difference is usually very easy to tell, you'd have to be extremely good at covering your tracks if you wanted to start from another code base and you copy bit-by-bit. Copying gives a completely different pattern than writing does.
There are ways of using information other than copy-pasting it in. A reference here and there when you get stuck, reading ahead to avoid dead-ends. They would also be moving much faster if they were just very good, and Google was already paying this guy on the understanding that he was the best. Picking that apart could be difficult-to-impossible.
Or maybe Uber's just complicit. But you're introducing facts not in evidence based on your assumptions about how this went down.
Or maybe Uber's just complicit. But you're introducing facts not in evidence based on your assumptions about how this went down.
I'm guessing this case falls under strict liability, i.e. it doesn't matter if Uber knew or not. If they used stolen IP, they're liable, period.
> What if Uber is actually innocent?
Note that "Uber" actually includes Ottomotto LLC, which is a named defendant, and whose assets and liabilities belong to Uber. Constructing a scenario where Levandowski is at fault but both Ottomotto LLC and Uber, excluding Ottomotto, are innocent is tricky.
Note that "Uber" actually includes Ottomotto LLC, which is a named defendant, and whose assets and liabilities belong to Uber. Constructing a scenario where Levandowski is at fault but both Ottomotto LLC and Uber, excluding Ottomotto, are innocent is tricky.
Oh wow, I just noticed under the related stories that Travis's mother was killed and father was seriously injured in a boating accident this week:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/business/uber-chief-execu...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/business/uber-chief-execu...
That's really terrible news. My condolences to the Kalanick family in this difficult time. I hope his dad recovers soon.
I'm going to call my mom today and tell her I love her.
I'm going to call my mom today and tell her I love her.
As much as I dislike Kalanick and Uber, this is terrible news, and I feel awful for him. I hope there are no people jaded enough to be happy about this. Losing a loved one goes beyond anything. Kalanick may be a dick and Uber may be legally and morally problematic, but at a human level, this just sucks. I hope he and his family can find some peace.
I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over. Maybe still too early to draw any conclusion, but I can't seem to have any counter potential excuse or reason to believe the self-driving programs weren't stolen. Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance?
Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?
Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?
> Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?
Finding evidence and having a jury (not a grand jury, grand juries indict, but do not convict) find someone guilty is exactly how trials work in the United States. One of the fundamental tenants of the US legal system is that nobody is obligated to testify against themselves (except in some very limited circumstances). It's the job of either the government (in the case of a crime) or the opposing party (in the case of a civil action) to prove that a person did things they are accused of, not the job of the person to prove they did not.
Finding evidence and having a jury (not a grand jury, grand juries indict, but do not convict) find someone guilty is exactly how trials work in the United States. One of the fundamental tenants of the US legal system is that nobody is obligated to testify against themselves (except in some very limited circumstances). It's the job of either the government (in the case of a crime) or the opposing party (in the case of a civil action) to prove that a person did things they are accused of, not the job of the person to prove they did not.
Okay that makes sense, thank you. This is basically remain silent but if evidence is enough to proven guilty, you aren't doing any better. 5th helps by not giving up any vulnerability for prosecutors.
Well, if my understanding is correct, he made something like ~$120M when he left Google and a similar lump sum (most in Uber stock) when Otto was acquired by Uber. I don't think he'll have problems in paying bills and rent (if he manages to stay out of jail). Plus, I'd not expect someone of that seniority to "apply for a job" - but most likely, start new ventures.
> Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?
The Fifth Amendment is often misunderstood. It only prevents the government from being able to compel you to confess to your own guilt. It does not prevent the government from during conclusions from other sources, nor even does it prevent the government from making you provide evidence to support its claims.
For example, say you habitually recorded all conversations in your office, and one day you talk about covering up a burglary you ordered. You cannot be compelled to reveal this fact: if the government asks you "Do you record your conversations?", you can plead the Fifth, and the government can't order you to turn over recordings of conversations you may or may not have. However, if you admit that you do (or someone else tells the government), then the government can order you to turn over recordings, and you cannot plead the Fifth.
The Fifth Amendment is often misunderstood. It only prevents the government from being able to compel you to confess to your own guilt. It does not prevent the government from during conclusions from other sources, nor even does it prevent the government from making you provide evidence to support its claims.
For example, say you habitually recorded all conversations in your office, and one day you talk about covering up a burglary you ordered. You cannot be compelled to reveal this fact: if the government asks you "Do you record your conversations?", you can plead the Fifth, and the government can't order you to turn over recordings of conversations you may or may not have. However, if you admit that you do (or someone else tells the government), then the government can order you to turn over recordings, and you cannot plead the Fifth.
If your own testimony is the only available evidence against you, that'd be a weak case.
But keep in mind that in civil cases like this one (unlike criminal cases), prosecutors and juries are allowed to draw "adverse inferences" from your silence and take it as evidence that you're guilty. Levandowski certainly isn't doing himself any favors by taking the 5th.
Not a lawyer, but I thought that was only applicable if you suddenly plead the 5th after originally answering questions? From what I know he has always remained silent so I don't think they could do much with that.
The rule is different in criminal and civil cases. There is no inherent right against self-incrimination in a civil case, since you're not being accused of committing a crime and are not at risk of conviction.
You can plead the Fifth in a civil case if you believe that answering the question could subject you to criminal prosecution. But, unlike in a criminal case, where you have an absolute right to remain silent (and it can not be held against you), a judge or jury in a civil case can draw whatever conclusions they wish from your lack of testimony.
You can plead the Fifth in a civil case if you believe that answering the question could subject you to criminal prosecution. But, unlike in a criminal case, where you have an absolute right to remain silent (and it can not be held against you), a judge or jury in a civil case can draw whatever conclusions they wish from your lack of testimony.
[deleted]
If he is guilty, then he absolutely is; an adverse inference is nowhere near as serious as sworn testimony proving something happened.
> Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance?
That and good old fashioned greed.
That and good old fashioned greed.
I think his career is very unlikely to be over, assuming he stays out of jail.
But can anyone trust him with anything going forward, regardless of the outcome of the allegation?
If you've ever held an influential job -- even briefly -- with the No. 1 player in a big industry, there's always someone farther down the pyramid that is willing to give you a second chance, third chance, etc.
No matter what got you fired.
Think of it from the standpoint of a small-company CEO, on the margins, trying to get traction any way possible. Yes, 90% of them won't want to hire you -- at least on 90% of the days that they come to work. But inevitably, one of them will say: "Let's give it a try." They need brainpower. They need people who have played in the big leagues. And the notion of taking a risk on someone that their archrivals have discarded ... with at least the faint possibility of making it work ... is very hard to resist.
No matter what got you fired.
Think of it from the standpoint of a small-company CEO, on the margins, trying to get traction any way possible. Yes, 90% of them won't want to hire you -- at least on 90% of the days that they come to work. But inevitably, one of them will say: "Let's give it a try." They need brainpower. They need people who have played in the big leagues. And the notion of taking a risk on someone that their archrivals have discarded ... with at least the faint possibility of making it work ... is very hard to resist.
And if you're a smaller fish than Google or Uber you probably have less IP for him to steal anyway. Plus you have the benefit of hindsight to watch him more closely and keep evidence of any wrongdoing he might try.
There's a Dennis Rodman in every line of work. Just because his NBA career came to a complete end in 2000 didn't stop him from finding one more chance playing basketball in Mexico . . . or the Philippines, etc. Not to mention lingerie football.
Are you talking about the Dennis Rodman that worked for the Detroit Pistons and then got a second chance with the Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls?
Yes indeed.
And one may always move into another big industry with completely different top players.
But hiring him makes a PR concern.
I don't think he's been charged with or even suspected of a crime.
>I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over.
Yeah, things aren't looking awesome for him to work for anyone else. Perhaps he should look into starting his own company in the self driving car space. It worked out well last time he tried! /s
Yeah, things aren't looking awesome for him to work for anyone else. Perhaps he should look into starting his own company in the self driving car space. It worked out well last time he tried! /s
Do you need to be hired by somebody when you have $150M+ in personal assets? You could start your own company entirely self seeded with 100+ employees with that amount of money, and still have a lot left over as a safety net.
Probably the way to go but I would not invest in someone like him if he is proven guilty. But I am sure a lot of people don't care about whether he's convicted, people will invest anything that can sell for money.
mee_too(2)
I bet there's another Travis Kalanick just chomping at the bit to higher him.
This issue brings to mind the fight over Phillip Shoemaker at Apple. Self driving cars and the engineering behind it seems highly specialized. Will this case with Levandowski put pressure on engineers to stay put, a stronger, tacit non-compete and no-poaching rule?
The nice thing about California is employers' concerns about the market, competition, and trade secrecy cannot take priority over an individual's right to work (with narrow exceptions for owners selling a business).
To the extent it puts pressure on the companies -- perhaps. But it shouldn't hurt the employees themselves; on the contrary, perhaps it encourages the companies to keep engineers around by granting enticing equity packages with long-ish vesting schedules.
Or you're right, and they'll just collude. Guess it could go either way...!
To the extent it puts pressure on the companies -- perhaps. But it shouldn't hurt the employees themselves; on the contrary, perhaps it encourages the companies to keep engineers around by granting enticing equity packages with long-ish vesting schedules.
Or you're right, and they'll just collude. Guess it could go either way...!
I don't think it will affect any ethical engineer -- you know, the ones who destroy/delete confidential information when leaving a job.
California has a law limiting the effectiveness of non-compete agreements. Most of these jobs are in California. Perhaps the companies will lobby California lawmakers, but I doubt it would be successful.
Link to formal termination letter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/0...
The termination letter indicates that the termination is for cause and may have implications on stock awards and other compensation:
"Under the Stock Award and other agreements, you are entitled to 20 days to cure the events that give rise to this termination for Cause. This letter constitutes the “prior written notice” triggering the commencement of that 20day period."
The termination letter indicates that the termination is for cause and may have implications on stock awards and other compensation:
"Under the Stock Award and other agreements, you are entitled to 20 days to cure the events that give rise to this termination for Cause. This letter constitutes the “prior written notice” triggering the commencement of that 20day period."
This is probably costing Levandowski many many millions of dollars. Uber bought Otto for 1% of Uber stock valued at around $700 million. A good chunk of that was owed to Levandowski at some unknown vesting/performance schedule. Otto employees are also owed a fifth of any future Uber trucking profits.
If the risk of testifying/cooperating with the investigation outweighs the massive financial incentive Levandowski had to cooperate then that risk must be pretty enormous...
From what I have read elsewhere, he already has quite a lot of wealth. So "not going to the pokey" probably has a lot higher value than whatever millions he is leaving behind.
IANAL but doesn't the letter's language ("that termination shall become effective 20 days from today") imply that he has 20 days to fix things, and that the termination is not a already done deal?
"Cause" has meaning here. His days working for Uber are likely done but if he choose to rectify the issues stated in the letter then he might be able to get the terminated for "Cause" removed in which case he likely has some parachute clauses and payouts which can come into effect.
Assuming Uber didn't want to fire him, and he rectifies the issues, then I don't believe there is anything preventing them from hiring him back.
Actually there's nothing preventing them from hiring him back after the court case concludes, is there? IANAL.
Actually there's nothing preventing them from hiring him back after the court case concludes, is there? IANAL.
I don't know. If the court thinks there was a deal between Uber and Levandowski where they "fired" him for the duration of the trial, only to hire him back as soon as possible, that could lead to contempt of court charges, I feel. But IANAL either.
I'm assuming that since he's a high-profile hire from an acquisition with a lot of vesting cycles attached to it, there are more required legal procedures including time window to amend things.
Sounds like that, yeah. Standard procedure I guess?
This is incredible. It looks like Uber is trying to pin this on him. I really hope it's true (and proven in court) that Uber encouraged him to steal secrets and start a company with the intention of Uber buying his half-assed startup. Because this firing totally fits the bill of Uber executives' public behavior, trying to shift the blame and throw people under the bus.
Uber isn't trying to pin thinks on Levandowski. They've actually been very courteous of him.
The deal is: Levandowski pled the 5th and refused to produce a lot of documents that he was ordered to by the court. Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted (EDIT: dragonwriter points out that non-natural persons can plead the 5th. For various reasons, Uber isn't asserting 5th Amendment protections, and the details of why it isn't aren't wildly important here. I regret the error).
Judge Alsup basically said, "You can't, like, inherit Levandowski's protections. You have to do everything possible to you in order to produce the documents that I've ordered you to produce. That means getting your employee to cooperate, or firing him." Uber asked Levandowksi to cooperate, and then when he didn't, they fired him. It was very much on Alsup's order.
The deal is: Levandowski pled the 5th and refused to produce a lot of documents that he was ordered to by the court. Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted (EDIT: dragonwriter points out that non-natural persons can plead the 5th. For various reasons, Uber isn't asserting 5th Amendment protections, and the details of why it isn't aren't wildly important here. I regret the error).
Judge Alsup basically said, "You can't, like, inherit Levandowski's protections. You have to do everything possible to you in order to produce the documents that I've ordered you to produce. That means getting your employee to cooperate, or firing him." Uber asked Levandowksi to cooperate, and then when he didn't, they fired him. It was very much on Alsup's order.
> Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted.
Uber can plead the fifth [EDIT: no, it can't, see note at end] (it applies not just to natural persons, and corporations are subject to criminal process as well), but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them, and if you take the fifth you can't do it selectively, any issue you take the fifth on you can't offer any testimony relating to. Taking the Fifth would be essentially waiving a defense on key points, and civil suits have a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so it would be fairly easy for Waymo to prove points against Uber where Uber essentially surrendered the ability to defend.
EDIT: while the discussion of the effects of taking the Fifth in a civil case of this type are something I stand behind, the basic premise (that Uber could take the Fifth) is incorrect; the self-incrimination protection of the Fifth is an exceptional provision of the Bill of Rights in that it has been held to apply only to individuals, not corporations and other similar entities, under the "collective entity rule."
Uber can plead the fifth [EDIT: no, it can't, see note at end] (it applies not just to natural persons, and corporations are subject to criminal process as well), but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them, and if you take the fifth you can't do it selectively, any issue you take the fifth on you can't offer any testimony relating to. Taking the Fifth would be essentially waiving a defense on key points, and civil suits have a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so it would be fairly easy for Waymo to prove points against Uber where Uber essentially surrendered the ability to defend.
EDIT: while the discussion of the effects of taking the Fifth in a civil case of this type are something I stand behind, the basic premise (that Uber could take the Fifth) is incorrect; the self-incrimination protection of the Fifth is an exceptional provision of the Bill of Rights in that it has been held to apply only to individuals, not corporations and other similar entities, under the "collective entity rule."
Funny anecdote - my friend is a county prosecutor, and occasionally gets "pro se" defendants, trying to do it themselves.
He had one such gentleman on trial, representing himself. He was called to testify, and decided he was going to plead the fifth on specific questions he didn't want to answer while on the stand, which isn't how it works.
The judge had to explain to him that he had already waived his right to plead the fifth, and was going to have to answer honestly under oath, not a good look in front of a jury.
He had one such gentleman on trial, representing himself. He was called to testify, and decided he was going to plead the fifth on specific questions he didn't want to answer while on the stand, which isn't how it works.
The judge had to explain to him that he had already waived his right to plead the fifth, and was going to have to answer honestly under oath, not a good look in front of a jury.
Corporations cannot plead the fifth--because you can't call corporation to testify (you call agents of the corporation instead), and you can only plead the fifth on behalf of yourself. While it is the case that employees can plead the fifth if it would personally incriminate themselves, withholding documents is only protected if the existence, custody, or authenticity of the documents themselves was not priorly known to the government.
> but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them
Isn't that untrue in California?
Isn't that untrue in California?
> Isn't that untrue in California?
IIRC, you are correct in suits under California law, but this has no effect in suits under federal law that happen to be heard in California. How that applies to this case may be complicated because it involves both state and federal law claims in federal court.
IIRC, you are correct in suits under California law, but this has no effect in suits under federal law that happen to be heard in California. How that applies to this case may be complicated because it involves both state and federal law claims in federal court.
Interesting!
[deleted]
I would think Google's argument would only need to be "Uber spent $600M on a 9-month old company". That alone is a huge red-flag, no?
This is another. Not sure if raising money in itself is a red flag.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/argo-ai#/entity
This--plus there is some evidence that suggests Uber already negotiated to acquire Otto before it even came into existence.
Google spent $1600M on a 18-months old company.
Youtube starts in April 2005. Is bought by Google October 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube
Youtube starts in April 2005. Is bought by Google October 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube
By that point "the site delivered an average of 100 million video views per day". Otto never delivered anything.
It's ON!!!!
... comes as a result of his involvement in a legal battle between Uber and Waymo, the self-driving technology unit spun out of Google last year.
Honest question - can they do that to him, or anyone else, before guilt is actually proven? What if the result is that nothing is found?? Can he counter-sue for wrongful termination??
Next time if you are company X and are angry your employee Y left for company Z, just sue Z in hopes they will let Y go.
Honest question - can they do that to him, or anyone else, before guilt is actually proven? What if the result is that nothing is found?? Can he counter-sue for wrongful termination??
Next time if you are company X and are angry your employee Y left for company Z, just sue Z in hopes they will let Y go.
They're firing him because they ordered him to cooperate with the investigation and he refused to do so, not for being guilty of a crime.
Are there truly that many Lidar-related trade "secrets" that Google knows about that suppliers and competitors at Velodyne, SPIE, ex-military researcers, etc. don't already?
If Levandowski is targeted by federal prosecutors, can he argue inevitable discovery based on existing public domain principles and papers (textbooks, etc.)?
I find it hard to believe that Google is the only innovator in Lidar thus far. It just seems like they are because it's now cool.
If Levandowski is targeted by federal prosecutors, can he argue inevitable discovery based on existing public domain principles and papers (textbooks, etc.)?
I find it hard to believe that Google is the only innovator in Lidar thus far. It just seems like they are because it's now cool.
The Preliminary Injunction order from earlier this month basically agreed with you and said many of Waymo's trade secret claims are probably overbroad and won't hold up.
But, the court said, it looks very much like Levandowski did take Waymo's files and use them at Uber, and the files "likely contain at least some trade secrets." So, basically, even if these are weak trade secrets claims and there aren't that many secrets, Uber and Levandowski have looked so bad on the question of whether they stole them that the Court was willing to say "fire him or else."
Here is that order if you're interested: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244394038... See pages 11-17.
But, the court said, it looks very much like Levandowski did take Waymo's files and use them at Uber, and the files "likely contain at least some trade secrets." So, basically, even if these are weak trade secrets claims and there aren't that many secrets, Uber and Levandowski have looked so bad on the question of whether they stole them that the Court was willing to say "fire him or else."
Here is that order if you're interested: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244394038... See pages 11-17.
At this point, I think this is a move to slow Uber's entry into the market, there is probably irrevocable damage because I would imagine it's hard to prevent their IP from being used.
I wonder how things would have played out if Otto was never acquired.
I wonder how things would have played out if Otto was never acquired.
Not mentioned in the article:
Uber is investing in a self-driving research unit in Toronto, Canada led by Raquel Urtasun [1].
Seems like a move to dodge all this Waymo brouhaha and benefit from Toronto's deep learning scene.
[1] https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/uber-hires-raquel-urta...
Uber is investing in a self-driving research unit in Toronto, Canada led by Raquel Urtasun [1].
Seems like a move to dodge all this Waymo brouhaha and benefit from Toronto's deep learning scene.
[1] https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/uber-hires-raquel-urta...
Or they decided to hire a researcher and her small team of grad students to feed them research before publishing.
There are quite a few positions open in Toronto[1], which leads me to believe that actual development of self-driving is happening in the city.
The current state of immigration in the US has been reported to drive developments in deep learning to Canada[2].
[1] https://careers-uber.icims.com/jobs/search?ss=1&searchCatego...
[2] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-new-ai-hub-in-c...
The current state of immigration in the US has been reported to drive developments in deep learning to Canada[2].
[1] https://careers-uber.icims.com/jobs/search?ss=1&searchCatego...
[2] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-new-ai-hub-in-c...
This has got to be painful for all the parties involved, I can only hope that people who are watching are thinking to themselves "hmm, seems like some bad choices." And whether or not they are really bad or just being painted that way, it gives you a sense of how everything will be used to craft a narrative around the sequence of events that serves the purposes of the people doing the crafting, not necessarily the participants about whom the narrative speaks.
Having experienced personally the effects of bad actors trying to create a narrative that differed markedly from 'reality' in order to protect their own vulnerability I know how pulling only certain "facts" out of the history can tell a different story than the truth.