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

Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#61

Post by mst »

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.

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#62

Post by Pyxl101 »

georgespencer wrote: post #48
EnFinlay wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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…

> 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...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#63

Post by tannhauser23 »

acchow wrote: post #4
jacquesm wrote: post #2

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#64

Post by potatolicious »

DINKDINK wrote: post #36
kognate wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#65

Post by perlgeek »

acchow wrote: post #4
jacquesm wrote: post #2

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?

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#66

Post by [deleted] »

Analemma_ wrote: post #54
xapata wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#67

Post by ivraatiems »

yeukhon wrote: post #43

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 ha…

> 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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#68

Post by ziszis »

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."

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#69

Post by yeukhon »

pcsanwald wrote: post #57
yeukhon wrote: post #43

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 ha…

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?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#70

Post by linkregister »

DINKDINK wrote: post #36
kognate wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post reply on HN