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

161–170 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#161

Post by blackguardx »

vadym909 wrote: post #159
EnFinlay wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That vendor's email is probably the most expensive email mistake ever made. I wonder if he sent it to the old Levandowsky (Google) email that his email system probably autopopulated?

It's very common for hardware vendors and hardware teams to have extremely long email chains where they copy everyone involved for the length of the project. I imagine that the vendor copied the old Google colleagues by mistake.

Misdirected emails happen. I was even recently called by a vendor on my cell phone (side effect of open offices: no office phone) for an old company that wanted to talk about the sensors they were using for a new project. The vendor still thought I worked there even two years after leaving.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#162

Post by [deleted] »

empath75 wrote: post #21
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 How does firing him equate to pressuring him to testify?

"If you don't testify or produce documents, we're going to fire you." "I still refuse to testify." "Alright, you're fired." That's all they can do.

[deleted]

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#163

Post by hluska »

openmosix wrote: post #113
untog wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you talk about what happened it doesn't magically mean all the punishment falls on the other side. If Levendowski admits to breaking the law he'll be punished, no matter if he is or isn't friends with Uber at the time.

Depends. If the story is how Waymo pictured it (the entire acquisition was an orchestrated plan with Uber to take IPs out of Google), if I were Levandowski I'd be reaching out to Waymo and propose a deal. I'll give you information to crucify Uber but you let me go. I guess Waymo is after Uber more than a single engineer.

The only issue is Levandowski could still face criminal charges and, under the circumstances can he trust Waymo not to take every drop of that information and hand it over to the most proximate prosecutor?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#164

Post by hluska »

mikekij wrote: post #121
tyingq wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if Uber could argue:

1.) At the time of acquisition, Levandowski was one of the world's leading experts on self driving technology.

2.) As one of the world's leading experts, Levandowski was able to recruit an incredible team.

3.) Self driving technology could be worth trillions and, in Uber's particular case, it would remove one of their biggest cost centres, thus making their business instantly profitable.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#165

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#166

Post by aetherson »

stevebmark wrote: post #93

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.

Uber isn't trying to pin thinks on Levandowski. They've actually been very courteous of him.

The deal is: Levandowski pled the 5th and refused to produce a lot of documents that he was ordered to by the court. Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted (EDIT: dragonwriter points out that non-natural persons can plead the 5th. For various reasons, Uber isn't asserting 5th Amendment protections, and the details of why it isn't aren't wildly important here. I regret the error).

Judge Alsup basically said, "You can't, like, inherit Levandowski's protections. You have to do everything possible to you in order to produce the documents that I've ordered you to produce. That means getting your employee to cooperate, or firing him." Uber asked Levandowksi to cooperate, and then when he didn't, they fired him. It was very much on Alsup's order.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#167

Post by joshuamorton »

nicolewhite wrote: post #144
xapata wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's employment contract with Levendowski specified that all disputes are resolved by arbitration rather than court.

Does that apply now that he's no longer an employee there?

In short, yes. And there's currently an ongoing arbitration between Google and Levandowski separate from this suit.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#168

Post by dragonwriter »

aetherson wrote: post #166
stevebmark wrote: post #93

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.

Uber isn't trying to pin thinks on Levandowski. They've actually been very courteous of him. The deal is: Levandowski pled the 5th and refused to produce a lot of documents that he was ordered to by the court. Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted (EDIT: dragonwriter points out that non-natural persons can plead the 5th. For various reasons, Uber isn't asserting 5…

> Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted.

Uber can plead the fifth [EDIT: no, it can't, see note at end] (it applies not just to natural persons, and corporations are subject to criminal process as well), but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them, and if you take the fifth you can't do it selectively, any issue you take the fifth on you can't offer any testimony relating to. Taking the Fifth would be essentially waiving a defense on key points, and civil suits have a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so it would be fairly easy for Waymo to prove points against Uber where Uber essentially surrendered the ability to defend.

EDIT: while the discussion of the effects of taking the Fifth in a civil case of this type are something I stand behind, the basic premise (that Uber could take the Fifth) is incorrect; the self-incrimination protection of the Fifth is an exceptional provision of the Bill of Rights in that it has been held to apply only to individuals, not corporations and other similar entities, under the "collective entity rule."

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#169

Post by tyingq »

hluska wrote: post #164
mikekij wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if Uber could argue: 1.) At the time of acquisition, Levandowski was one of the world's leading experts on self driving technology. 2.) As one of the world's leading experts, Levandowski was able to recruit an incredible team. 3.) Self driving technology could be worth trillions and, in Uber's particular case, it would remove one of their biggest cost centres, thus making their busines…

Assuming that roughly matches the due diligence documents.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#170

Post by dsp1234 »

kbenson wrote: post #124
gvb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

More specifically, the "specialized software" was TortoiseSVN, and the "downloaded over 14,000 ... downloaded 9.7 GB" was an SVN checkout.

An SVN client being used to access an SVN repository is hardly unusual, certainly not in the way insinuated by the wording presented.

Post reply on HN