Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#21

Post by empath75 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #20

tmh79 wrote: post #17

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…

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?

"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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#22

Post by jacquesm » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #20

tmh79 wrote: post #17

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…

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?

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#23

Post by jacquesm » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #19

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#24

Post by MichaelBurge » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #20

tmh79 wrote: post #17

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…

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?

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#25

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #20

tmh79 wrote: post #17

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…

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?

[deleted]

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#26

Post by CPLX » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #7

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…

> 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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#27

Post by nevir » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #5

Of course, whatever salary he was making is far less interesting than the direct benefit of the original Otto acquisition.

Much/most of it was probably tied to his continued employment

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#28

Post by tyingq » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #23

Kiro wrote: post #19

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.

>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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#29

Post by kognate » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:09 PM UTC

it_learnses wrote: post #10

gumby wrote: post #7

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…

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

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#30

Post by untog » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:10 PM UTC

openmosix wrote: post #12

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.