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

191–200 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#191

Post by dllthomas »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #134
CPLX wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I mean, it did fly, in that he was not compelled (... directly?) by the court to testify. Which isn't to say it didn't have other consequences...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#192

Post by jcranmer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #168
aetherson wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fift…

Corporations cannot plead the fifth--because you can't call corporation to testify (you call agents of the corporation instead), and you can only plead the fifth on behalf of yourself. While it is the case that employees can plead the fifth if it would personally incriminate themselves, withholding documents is only protected if the existence, custody, or authenticity of the documents themselves was not priorly known to the government.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#193

Post by dllthomas »

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…

> 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.

Except in this case, we already know that "something very serious is going on" - there are obvious, substantial criminal implications to what Google is alleging.

"Don't say anything that might increase the chance of you going to trial" starts sounding quite a bit more reasonable, there, even if Levandowski is innocent.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#194

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dllthomas wrote: post #191
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I mean, it did fly, in that he was not compelled (... directly?) by the court to testify. Which isn't to say it didn't have other consequences...

But Levandowski tried to get the court to not allow Waymo to discover who wrote the due diligence report. (Not just block Waymo from seeing the report - he tried to block Waymo from even learning who wrote it.) He did this by claiming the 5th. On a court case that he wasn't a party to.

And the judge didn't buy it (rightly, IMHO).

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#195

Post by ianamartin »

philip1209 wrote: post #32

Oh wow, I just noticed under the related stories that Travis's mother was killed and father was seriously injured in a boating accident this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/business/uber-chief-execu...

As much as I dislike Kalanick and Uber, this is terrible news, and I feel awful for him. I hope there are no people jaded enough to be happy about this. Losing a loved one goes beyond anything. Kalanick may be a dick and Uber may be legally and morally problematic, but at a human level, this just sucks. I hope he and his family can find some peace.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#196

Post by woodandsteel »

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…

Part of the problem for Uber is that, as is standard in acquisitions, Uber commissioned a due diligence report to try to determine the odds there was stolen IP involved when they were thinking of buying Levandowski's company.

Now that ought to be evidence that Uber could use in its defense. Instead, Uber is going to extrordinary lengths to try to keep it out of the trial.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#197

Post by asr »

dafty4 wrote: post #147

Are there truly that many Lidar-related trade "secrets" that Google knows about that suppliers and competitors at Velodyne, SPIE, ex-military researcers, etc. don't already? If Levandowski is targeted by federal prosecutors, can he argue inevitable discovery based on existing public domain principles and papers (textbooks, etc.)? I find it hard to believe that Google is the only innovator in Lidar thus far. It just s…

The Preliminary Injunction order from earlier this month basically agreed with you and said many of Waymo's trade secret claims are probably overbroad and won't hold up.

But, the court said, it looks very much like Levandowski did take Waymo's files and use them at Uber, and the files "likely contain at least some trade secrets." So, basically, even if these are weak trade secrets claims and there aren't that many secrets, Uber and Levandowski have looked so bad on the question of whether they stole them that the Court was willing to say "fire him or else."

Here is that order if you're interested: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244394038... See pages 11-17.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#198

Post by draw_down »

abvdasker wrote: post #143
guelo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably costing Levandowski many many millions of dollars. Uber bought Otto for 1% of Uber stock valued at around $700 million. A good chunk of that was owed to Levandowski at some unknown vesting/performance schedule. Otto employees are also owed a fifth of any future Uber trucking profits.

If the risk of testifying/cooperating with the investigation outweighs the massive financial incentive Levandowski had to cooperate then that risk must be pretty enormous...

From what I have read elsewhere, he already has quite a lot of wealth. So "not going to the pokey" probably has a lot higher value than whatever millions he is leaving behind.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#199

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #168
aetherson wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fift…

> but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them

Isn't that untrue in California?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#200

Post by dllthomas »

jacquesm wrote: post #23
Kiro wrote: post #19

What if Uber is actually innocent? I've always just assumed they are guilty and planned this all along.

> 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.

Have we established that Uber knew about the files?
Post reply on HN