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

101–110 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#101

Post by John23832 »

downandout wrote: post #96
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 palata…

Don't all corporate punishments include the clause "up to and including termination"?

If the court is compelling Uber to produce documents and/or information, and if those documents/information are in the hands on one employee, then the courts are compelling Uber to compel employee. That's Uber's card to play, "punishment, up to and including termination".

The court didn't order Uber to fire Levandowski, it ask Uber to do everything within its power to produce documents/information.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#102

Post by jonknee »

djtriptych wrote: post #86
pcsanwald wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yet, but if what Google alleges is even semi-correct he will face serious charges.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#103

Post by CPLX »

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 .

That's patent nonsense.

It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that something very serious is going on.

When people sue each other they don't get to remain silent, they're subject to depositions, discovery, being put on the stand, and having to explain themselves. Your comment applies to criminal matters, it's not comparable at all.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#104

Post by jeeyoungk »

United857 wrote: post #91
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?

I'm assuming that since he's a high-profile hire from an acquisition with a lot of vesting cycles attached to it, there are more required legal procedures including time window to amend things.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#105

Post by ooqr »

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.

In spite of what you see on TV, it's not up to a victim to decide whether or not to press criminal charges in the end. That's up to the attorney general usually.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#106

Post by jonknee »

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 on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance?

That and good old fashioned greed.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#107

Post by guelo »

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”…

This is probably costing Levandowski many many millions of dollars. Uber bought Otto for 1% of Uber stock valued at around $700 million. A good chunk of that was owed to Levandowski at some unknown vesting/performance schedule. Otto employees are also owed a fifth of any future Uber trucking profits.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#108

Post by law_of_the_hobo »

tuna-piano wrote: post #89
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.

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…

I have to imagine that google also wants to set a precedent that they won't tolerate people stealing their trade secrets.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#110

Post by pythonaut_16 »

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 if you're a smaller fish than Google or Uber you probably have less IP for him to steal anyway. Plus you have the benefit of hindsight to watch him more closely and keep evidence of any wrongdoing he might try.
Post reply on HN