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

131–140 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#131

Post by stouset »

CPLX wrote: post #103
stouset wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The current case between Waymo and Uber is a civil dispute, but there is absolutely the possibility here of criminal charges being filed against Levandowski. It's already been referred to a federal prosecutor.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#132

Post by amyjess »

ooqr wrote: post #105
lurker456 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Though police do often drop criminal charges if the victim is uncooperative.

Here's a recent example: a friend of mine was raped and strangled to death last month. They caught her alleged murderer last week. When the media got a hold of it, they found out that he had been accused of rape and attempted strangulation five years ago, but police decided not to press charges because the victim wanted to let it drop.

So yeah, it happens; it's just a spectacularly bad idea for the police to do it. If they hadn't declined to file charges, my friend and another murder victim would probably still be alive today.

Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/26/man-killed-...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#133

Post by jonas21 »

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…

The court can (and did) order Uber to:

> immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court) by MAY 31 AT NOON [1]

---

I believe that authority includes firing him if he did not comply.

[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3722249/Uber-Inju...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#134

Post by AnimalMuppet »

CPLX wrote: post #103
stouset wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

More: to take the 5th in a civil dispute that they aren't even a party to. That's extremely unusual - and in this case, it didn't fly.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#135

Post by otterley »

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…

Actually, they did it because the judge suggested it. There was no other practical way for Uber to comply with the court's orders in light of Levandowski's pleading the Fifth.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Uber.Waym... (page 23, footnote 9).

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#136

Post by jacquesm »

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.

Frankly I don't buy it, not even a little bit. I do DD for a living with some regularity and if someone popped up with that much IP in such a short time I would spend a lot of time on the origin story of that IP and I really would like to have a chat with the magical 1000x developers that they employed.

It is beyond suspicious, but then again, maybe pigs really can fly.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#138

Post by phamilton »

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.

His situation was referred to a federal prosecutor. I'd say that's at least 'suspected of a crime'.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#139

Post by jacquesm »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #126
jacquesm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Happens all the time, I wouldn't worry about it, just ignore it.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#140

Post by joering2 »

... comes as a result of his involvement in a legal battle between Uber and Waymo, the self-driving technology unit spun out of Google last year.

Honest question - can they do that to him, or anyone else, before guilt is actually proven? What if the result is that nothing is found?? Can he counter-sue for wrongful termination??

Next time if you are company X and are angry your employee Y left for company Z, just sue Z in hopes they will let Y go.

Post reply on HN