Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#81

Post by rhino369 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

tmh79 wrote: post #47

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?

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 informatio…

(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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#82

Post by stouset » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #26

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.

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#83

Post by GCA10 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:34 PM UTC

yeukhon wrote: post #69

pcsanwald wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#84

Post by gvb » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:35 PM UTC

tmh79 wrote: post #47

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?

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 informatio…

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-...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#85

Post by yeukhon » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:35 PM UTC

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…

...

That's very disrespectful. If I am not sure, I'll ask.

Perhaps you are the one without intellect to know when to keep your rude comment to yourself.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#86

Post by djtriptych » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:35 PM UTC

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.

I don't think he's been charged with or even suspected of a crime.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#87

Post by rlanday » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #74

Pyxl101 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

Levandowski may indeed be facing criminal charges (separate from the civil case against Uber), hence his unwillingness to testify.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#88

Post by rlanday » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #74

Pyxl101 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

Levandowski may indeed be facing criminal charges (separate from the civil case against Uber), hence his unwillingness to testify.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#89

Post by tuna-piano » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #26

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.

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?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#90

Post by lurker456 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #26

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.

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.