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

71–80 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#71

Post by ryandamm »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #51

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...!

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#72

Post by graysonk »

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.

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#73

Post by yeukhon »

ivraatiems wrote: post #67
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 testi…

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#74

Post by georgespencer »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #62
georgespencer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Oh weird I thought this was a criminal case. Thanks!

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#75

Post by georgespencer »

vkou wrote: post #53
georgespencer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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!

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#76

Post by mee_too »

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…

...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#77

Post by greglindahl »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #51

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?

I don't think it will affect any ethical engineer -- you know, the ones who destroy/delete confidential information when leaving a job.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#78

Post by linkregister »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #51

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?

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#79

Post by linkregister »

mee_too wrote: post #76
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…

...

Why?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#80

Post by Pyxl101 »

jacquesm wrote: post #22
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN