Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

Post by tomjen3 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 8:42 PM UTC

jonas21 wrote: post #133

downandout wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Post by huebnerob » Tue, May 30, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #130

jmccaf wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cl…

Post by froindt » Tue, May 30, 2017, 8:51 PM UTC

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…

Post by hluska » Tue, May 30, 2017, 8:53 PM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #132

ooqr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ye…

Post by vadym909 » Tue, May 30, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

EnFinlay wrote: post #33

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…

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?