Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#91

Post by United857 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:37 PM UTC

ziszis wrote: post #68

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”…

IANAL but doesn't the letter's language ("that termination shall become effective 20 days from today") imply that he has 20 days to fix things, and that the termination is not a already done deal?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#92

Post by djtriptych » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:37 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.

I'm guessing this case falls under strict liability, i.e. it doesn't matter if Uber knew or not. If they used stolen IP, they're liable, period.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#93

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

This is incredible. It looks like Uber is trying to pin this on him. I really hope it's true (and proven in court) that Uber encouraged him to steal secrets and start a company with the intention of Uber buying his half-assed startup. Because this firing totally fits the bill of Uber executives' public behavior, trying to shift the blame and throw people under the bus.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#94

Post by jbigelow76 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:39 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.

Levandowski got $250 million in Uber stock during the Otto acquisition and per a story on Techcrunch as of May 3rd, none of it had vested yet. Doesn't seem likely it will either.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#95

Post by jacquesm » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:40 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #50

csours wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And most of those things would also go on a list called "illegal things companies have done". Probably not a good idea to do something illegal in the middle of a lawsuit.

There are many ways to make an employee's life worse without doing anything illegal. You tend to see them in dysfunctional companies.

Yes, but usually not in the middle of lawsuits that spell 'doom' in large letters for the eventual loser(s).

Uber has one and one chance only to get this behind them: to play by the book and to ask 'how high' when the judge tells them to jump. If they try anything funny they can expect the ROI of that to be substantial and negative.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#96

Post by downandout » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:40 PM UTC

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…

The court can't order a private entity to fire a private employee. They did this because they know they are probably going to lose this case, and it will be harder for Waymo to show that Uber's conduct was willful now that they have fired the main person involved. They want to be able to say "as soon as we were sure that some of this was stolen, we fired the person that did it". That may make a settlement more palatable to Waymo, or potentially decrease the damages awarded to them by a jury if it goes to trial.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#97

Post by tedivm » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

mst wrote: post #61

jacquesm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

According to various documents that Google has submitted to the courts, Uber was talking with Levandowski before he had even left Google.

https://www.axios.com/analysis-uber-gets-bruised-though-not-...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#98

Post by rch » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:43 PM UTC

GCA10 wrote: post #83

yeukhon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And one may always move into another big industry with completely different top players.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#99

Post by pythonaut_16 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

lurker456 wrote: post #90

CPLX wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think Google can offer immunity since any criminal charges would be brought by the state.

Google could offer not to bring a civil suit against him, but it sounds like criminal charges are on the table and he's trying to avoid anything that might help that investigation.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#100

Post by jbigelow76 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

stouset wrote: post #82

CPLX wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 .

He (most likely) forfeited his as of yet unvested $250 million in Uber stock he received as part of the acquisition. I suppose some innocent people would walk from $250 million on the advice of their lawyer, but not many.