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

121–130 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#121

Post by mikekij »

tyingq wrote: post #28
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.

>Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising Should be fun when the due diligence docs come out, and we get Uber's view of how Otto went from a value of zero to $680M in 7 months, with only legitimate IP, 5 Trucks, and 90 employees.

This. How is this not the main crux of the argument for Uber's being complicit in the IP theft?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#122

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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 bet there's another Travis Kalanick just chomping at the bit to higher him.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#123

Post by scarmig »

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…

Eh. Waymo definitely worries about Uber as a competitor, and in general many people have a distaste for Uber's culture and values.

But there's still a pretty stark line between being a strategic competitor and being a scummy traitor who steals trade secrets and the labor of his coworkers. If it came down to a choice between shutting down Uber's self-driving car program and ruining Levandowski, I'm sure a lot of people would want to choose the latter, even though it's "irrational." Principles are important.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#124

Post by kbenson »

gvb wrote: post #84
tmh79 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-iss…

After reading the transcript of the testimony on what Google actually knows about (1), it's actually less convincing in my opinion than Google's wording makes it sound (which is to be expected from lawyers making a case). I still believe Levandowski likely took trade secrets, but it's much less compelling when you read the details. There's a link to it in this HN comment[1], and I reply with what I think is a fair summary.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#125

Post by openmosix »

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.

Otto went from zero to hero in ~7 months. Assuming that talks of a $800M company acquisition take some time and you don't build a company overnight (hiring and ramping up something like 90 employees), how long was really spent in R&D mode? 3 months? 4? Compared to years of R&D from other companies in the same space seems like a big stretch.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#126

Post by sillysaurus3 »

jacquesm wrote: post #95
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, but the topic had diverged somewhat.

OT, have you noticed an increase in superfluous downvoting? I'm not really complaining, just trying to figure out if I'm imagining it or if it's randomness doing its thing.

Since HN has become so much bigger, I wonder if the mods could scale down the effect of downvoting. E.g. make it take two downvotes to make a comment appear at 0.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#127

Post by sjg007 »

openmosix wrote: post #12

Interesting. The situation between Uber and Levendowski always reminded me of the prisoner dilemma. If one bails on the other, might the other starts talking about what really happened? I think that staying together would have been the best course of action for Uber. Very interesting to see how this will develop.

This will probably be a case study eventually.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#128

Post by yeukhon »

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…

But hiring him makes a PR concern.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#129

Post by euyyn »

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?

Sounds like that, yeah. Standard procedure I guess?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#130

Post by kbenson »

jmccaf wrote: post #114
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.

http://lostinjapan.groth.hm/archives/2010/04/sitting-at-the-... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/business/global/layoffs-il... Legend has it that Japanese companies, rather than terminate under-performing employees, will seat them "at the window" and not assign them any tasks at all ... This is not terribly compelling short-term, but is horribly boring .

Played well, that sounds like a good way to get your side project off the ground. Then again, I imagine the cross section of under-performing employees that get this treatment and those that are ambitious enough to follow through on an idea for a side project/business is probably quite small.

Also, you probably would have to hide all the work, since depending on your contract your employer would probably have some claim to it, since it was during work hours.

Post reply on HN