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

181–190 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#181

Post by Arizhel »

>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

Sorry about your friend, but why is it a "spectacularly bad idea" for police to do so? What alternative do they have? If the sole victim is unwilling to cooperate with the investigation and subsequent trial, their chances of actually succeeding in imprisoning that scumbag are approximately zero. If you want to blame someone, go find the stupid, selfish woman who wanted to "let it drop" 5 years ago. Remember that old saying about evil flourishing because good people do nothing.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#182

Post by femto113 »

mikekij wrote: post #117

I would think Google's argument would only need to be "Uber spent $600M on a 9-month old company". That alone is a huge red-flag, no?

This--plus there is some evidence that suggests Uber already negotiated to acquire Otto before it even came into existence.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#183

Post by joering2 »

mikekij wrote: post #117

I would think Google's argument would only need to be "Uber spent $600M on a 9-month old company". That alone is a huge red-flag, no?

Google spent $1600M on a 18-months old company.

Youtube starts in April 2005. Is bought by Google October 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#184

Post by arkitaip »

blackguardx wrote: post #161
vadym909 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's crazy how common this is in even very sensitive cases. There should be a rule based system in place that makes it troublesome to email people not associated to a certain project.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#185

Post by rmellow »

Not mentioned in the article:

Uber is investing in a self-driving research unit in Toronto, Canada led by Raquel Urtasun [1].

Seems like a move to dodge all this Waymo brouhaha and benefit from Toronto's deep learning scene.

[1] https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/uber-hires-raquel-urta...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#186

Post by ChuckMcM »

Not exactly unexpected given the court order earlier, interesting bit about how he has 20 days to decide if he wants to rectify the 'cause'. Presumably that would mean admitting stuff that he previously felt would incriminate himself so doing so would put him into more jeopardy on some axis.

This has got to be painful for all the parties involved, I can only hope that people who are watching are thinking to themselves "hmm, seems like some bad choices." And whether or not they are really bad or just being painted that way, it gives you a sense of how everything will be used to craft a narrative around the sequence of events that serves the purposes of the people doing the crafting, not necessarily the participants about whom the narrative speaks.

Having experienced personally the effects of bad actors trying to create a narrative that differed markedly from 'reality' in order to protect their own vulnerability I know how pulling only certain "facts" out of the history can tell a different story than the truth.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#187

Post by dllthomas »

pinewurst wrote: post #116
Pyxl101 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also probably means that Levandowski loses some or all of his compensation for Uber's acquisition of Otto, right? From what I recall, that purchase was made in Uber stock, and I'd expect it to have a vesting schedule. Depending on the length of the initial cliff, it seems possible that he hasn't vested any of that stock. I am speculating though and don't know for sure.

My understanding is that the vesting started when he left Google/Waymo. Uber made vesting retroactive back to Otto's nominal start date. This has been called out by Waymo's lawyers.

Of course, if it is the case that Otto was built on misappropriated trade secrets, and Levandowski lied to Uber about that during the acquisition, then we might well see some of that clawed back in a separate lawsuit.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#188

Post by URSpider94 »

graysonk wrote: post #72
Analemma_ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But keep in mind that in civil cases like this one (unlike criminal cases), prosecutors and juries are allowed to draw "adverse inferences" from your silence and take it as evidence that you're guilty. Levandowski certainly isn't doing himself any favors by taking the 5th.

Not a lawyer, but I thought that was only applicable if you suddenly plead the 5th after originally answering questions? From what I know he has always remained silent so I don't think they could do much with that.

The rule is different in criminal and civil cases. There is no inherent right against self-incrimination in a civil case, since you're not being accused of committing a crime and are not at risk of conviction.

You can plead the Fifth in a civil case if you believe that answering the question could subject you to criminal prosecution. But, unlike in a criminal case, where you have an absolute right to remain silent (and it can not be held against you), a judge or jury in a civil case can draw whatever conclusions they wish from your lack of testimony.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#189

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

mikeryan wrote: post #120
United857 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Cause" has meaning here. His days working for Uber are likely done but if he choose to rectify the issues stated in the letter then he might be able to get the terminated for "Cause" removed in which case he likely has some parachute clauses and payouts which can come into effect.

Assuming Uber didn't want to fire him, and he rectifies the issues, then I don't believe there is anything preventing them from hiring him back.

Actually there's nothing preventing them from hiring him back after the court case concludes, is there? IANAL.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#190

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

rmellow wrote: post #185

Not mentioned in the article: Uber is investing in a self-driving research unit in Toronto, Canada led by Raquel Urtasun [1]. Seems like a move to dodge all this Waymo brouhaha and benefit from Toronto's deep learning scene. [1] https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/uber-hires-raquel-urta...

Or they decided to hire a researcher and her small team of grad students to feed them research before publishing.
Post reply on HN