Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 134 posts

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#51

Post by ithinkinstereo »

alain94040 wrote: post #15
bitmapbrother wrote: post #9

Perhaps this is standard practice, in the valley, to make the company that acquired your company defend you in the event that the acquisition resulted in a lawsuit, but this revelation just adds another red flag to the already long list of red flags that Uber ignored when acquiring Otto. IMO, Uber clearly knew what he did, either through disclosure or due diligence, and disregarded it. Considering their company cultu…

You are missing the key point: that agreement was not signed when Otto was acquired by Uber, it was signed days after Levandowski left Google, before there should have been any discussions with Uber regarding the acquisition of a startup that didn't exist yet. That is really bad optics.

Are there any legitimate reasons why Uber would sign this agreement?

Why would a company sign an agreement with the founder of a startup about the acquisition of said startup before it even exists?

This lends credence to Google/Waymo's argument that Uber and Levandowski where scheming from the get-go. Bad optics, indeed.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#52

Post by jarsin »

ethbro wrote: post #6
rodionos wrote: post #3

It's high time for mods to launch ubernews, they are in the spotlight every single day. 71 submissions last week [0]. 0: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=uber&sort=byDate&dateRange=pas...

Were you on Slashdot when SCO was ongoing? If not, this is what a corporate titan proxy war looks like in the news cycle. And it's objectively defensible. The outcome of this lawsuit will shape what an incredibly important future technology looks like and who controls it.

I wasted so many working hours over SCO. Tons of arguments at work and reading slashdot. Oh man those were the days. :)

I am no where near as passionate about uber vs google probably because google vs uber is not as great as microsoft vs linux and the survival of opensource.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#53

Post by thetrb »

ziszis wrote: post #20

I assume that Otto execs indemnified Uber with respect to the intellectual property, given that it was a primary value in the acquisition. If so, Uber can claw back the $680M they spent. If not, it would be the worst IP miss since Ebay acquired Skype for $2 Billion, only to find out that they didn't own Skype's IP or have access to the source code [0]. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2009/09/18/new-lawsuit-brings-clarity.…

I tried to look up the Skype acquisition since this seemed crazy and this is what Wikipedia says:

"In September 2005, eBay acquired Skype for $2.6 billion.[13]

In September 2009,[14] Silver Lake, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board announced the acquisition of 65% of Skype for $1.9 billion from eBay, which attributed to the enterprise a market value of $2.92 billion. Microsoft bought Skype in May 2011 for $8.5 billion."

Looks like Ebay paid 2.6B for Skype, then got 1.9B for 65% of it and presumably another 2.8B for the remaining 35% once Microsoft acquired it. Doesn't sound like such a bad acquisition.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#54

Post by woodandsteel »

ithinkinstereo wrote: post #51
alain94040 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the key point: that agreement was not signed when Otto was acquired by Uber, it was signed days after Levandowski left Google, before there should have been any discussions with Uber regarding the acquisition of a startup that didn't exist yet. That is really bad optics.

Are there any legitimate reasons why Uber would sign this agreement? Why would a company sign an agreement with the founder of a startup about the acquisition of said startup before it even exists? This lends credence to Google/Waymo's argument that Uber and Levandowski where scheming from the get-go. Bad optics, indeed.

Waymo claims it has evidence that Levandowski and Urber were talking for months before he left Waymo.

In addition there is the fact the he secretly started a self-driving car company at least a year before. The whole thing looks like he and Uber planned the whole scheme beforehand.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#55

Post by siegel »

ziszis wrote: post #20

I assume that Otto execs indemnified Uber with respect to the intellectual property, given that it was a primary value in the acquisition. If so, Uber can claw back the $680M they spent. If not, it would be the worst IP miss since Ebay acquired Skype for $2 Billion, only to find out that they didn't own Skype's IP or have access to the source code [0]. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2009/09/18/new-lawsuit-brings-clarity.…

Presumably they did, but oftentimes indemnification for IP claims in the M&A context is limited to just a percentage of the total consideration for the merger. So, it's very possible that indemnification would be capped at, say, $68M or $136M. Certainly not nothing, but also not $680M.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#56

Post by ufo »

remarkEon wrote: post #49
ehsankia wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, misstep after misstep. This is really turning out very poorly for Uber. All because of a bunch of accidental events.

If this gets more wild (and I feel it might) it could end up as a movie.

At this rate it will end up like The Informant

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#57

Post by woodandsteel »

ziszis wrote: post #20

I assume that Otto execs indemnified Uber with respect to the intellectual property, given that it was a primary value in the acquisition. If so, Uber can claw back the $680M they spent. If not, it would be the worst IP miss since Ebay acquired Skype for $2 Billion, only to find out that they didn't own Skype's IP or have access to the source code [0]. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2009/09/18/new-lawsuit-brings-clarity.…

>I assume that Otto execs indemnified Uber with respect to the intellectual property, given that it was a primary value in the acquisition. If so, Uber can claw back the $680M they spent.

Uber's big problem is not the $680 million. It's that if Waymo's claims are true, then Uber's self-driving car program will likely be shut down, and they will have to start all over from scratch.

And that in turn means other companies are going to beat them, likely by years, to fielding self-driving taxis, and that would be the end of Uber.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#58

Post by woodandsteel »

tdb7893 wrote: post #50
ehsankia wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, misstep after misstep. This is really turning out very poorly for Uber. All because of a bunch of accidental events.

In a more cynical view it could be because he is actually super guilty and many of these "missteps" are because the alternatives are even worse

Not just he but also Uber.

Re: Uber must turn over information about its acquisition of Otto to Waymo

#60

Post by woodandsteel »

guelo wrote: post #22

Where's the district attorney? If someone is claiming the 5th because he might be incriminated that seems like pretty strong probable cause for a criminal investigation.

This is a civil suit, the district attorney is for felony trials. Levandowski definitely seems to have committed a felony. What usually happens in these sorts of cases, from what I have read, is that the civil suit takes place first and establishes the facts, and then the felony trial takes place based on them.
Post reply on HN