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

241–250 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#241

Post by btown »

kbenson wrote: post #225
huac wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google alleges he then copied the files onto a portable hard drive and wiped the laptop, which shows a pretty strong intent to deceive.

Sure, when it's summarized like that, it sounds bad, and it maybe bad. But compare that to this slightly expanded timeline summary from reading the actual filing[1]: The laptop in question connected to Google only 3 times between March 2, 2015 and November 25, 2015, despite being configured to connect every 15 minutes. ~ 2 hours on Oct 22, ~2 hours on Nov 20, and "briefly" on Nov 25. (My interpretation? It was almost…

Thanks for writing this up. The court of public opinion IMO should adhere to "innocent until proven guilty," and summaries like yours are the only things that make that possible.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#242

Post by munin »

marklyon wrote: post #222
huebnerob wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to get 'put on the roof' like that, but I think the Japanese policy also states that you're not allowed to do anything outside of the ridiculously mundane task they assign you, and they actually watch you like a hawk to ensure as such. Pretty smart, most people aren't going to stay in that situation for long.

Could you imagine being the manager assigned to watch such employees? That's a special hell. I once worked at a newspaper, when "online" was new and side project of the marketing department so that they could sell more ads. Until I automated things, we were cutting and pasting a few articles each night from Quark into BBEdit and hand-massaging it into HTML templates for upload. They assigned us an "editor". Poor guy…

> Could you imagine being the manager assigned to watch such employees?

What do you think they do with the managers they want to fire? ;)

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#244

Post by throwaway13234 »

huac wrote: post #217
kbenson wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it was also a previously unused laptop, so it's not all that unusual for someone setting up a work system to make sure their work access is set up. It is odd that it happened towards the end, and that it wasn't used afterwards, but I can also see it being something I might do in preperation if I had to take a short trip and hadn't set up a remote work laptop yet or my prior one was causing problems. That it…

Google alleges he then copied the files onto a portable hard drive and wiped the laptop, which shows a pretty strong intent to deceive.

Can you show me where in the expert testimony this is? I haven't yet found this exact allegation myself. I've seen the media parrot this over and over again.

The expert testimony identified a specific model card reader attached to the computer a full three days later. It didn't say that a memory card was ever inserted into the card reader and mounted a logical volume. Nor did the expert testimony mention any files copied to an external drive. The have an expert testimony with specific details from logs about a card reader being inserted but no specific details about a storage device or files being copied? Does the lack of these details but specificity of other details not strike anyone else as odd?

The only copying of files that were specifically identified in the expert testimony was the copying of about a half dozen files to Google drive. That's it. I'm not saying that there isn't the possibility of wrongdoing, but the expert testimony certainly doesn't support the allegations enough to meet the criteria of "preponderance of evidence" for me at least. The testimony definitely doesn't meet the criteria of being a smoking gun, yet that is how it has been reported.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#245

Post by throwaway13234 »

kbenson wrote: post #239
huac wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, Google's interpretation is not particularly generous. But even the most charitable reading of the facts would find that Levandowski downloaded the files to an external disk, relatively close to when he left the company. All of that is bad for Levandowski, but it's unclear if any of those files got used by Uber, which is where the case may very well fizzle out.

> But even the most charitable reading of the facts would find that Levandowski downloaded the files to an external disk Actually, no. All they have is that a few days after an SVN sync, a USB card reader was attached for 8 hours. There is no evidence presented that he actually copied any files, much less the synced SVN files, to whatever was connected with the USB card reader. He could have plugged it in to copy his…

This. Everyone should read the expert testimony themselves and come to their own conclusion. It's not long. Just a few pages.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#246

Post by throwaway13234 »

hackunomatter wrote: post #220
kbenson wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it was also a previously unused laptop, so it's not all that unusual for someone setting up a work system to make sure their work access is set up. It is odd that it happened towards the end, and that it wasn't used afterwards, but I can also see it being something I might do in preperation if I had to take a short trip and hadn't set up a remote work laptop yet or my prior one was causing problems. That it…

Well, if he has a rock-solid benign explanation, why doesn't he come on the stand and testify?

Seeing as how the expert testimony is far from being in the least bit conclusive but allegations were presented as such, it's not hard to see why it is best to say nothing. Every word you utter will be used against you in the least charitable way possible, especially when the court of public opinion already thinks you're guilty.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#247

Post by throwaway13234 »

Statement from Levandowski's lawyers:

https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pd...

"The bite of the Court’s May 11, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Order, as it relates to nonparty Anthony Levandowski, can be summarized quite simply: 'Waive your Fifth Amendment rights... or I will have you fired. The choice is yours, Mr. Levandowski.' But, even when framed as a “choice,” this command runs counter to nearly a half century of United States Supreme Court precedent, beginning with Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment forbids a government entity from threatening an individual with the choice “between self-incrimination and job forfeiture.” Id. at 497, 500. As the Supreme Court observed in Garrity, the “option to lose [one’s] means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent.” Id. at 497. As the Supreme Court made clear, whenever a state actor imposes this choice between “the rock and the whirlpool,” it engages in unlawful constitutional compulsion, which, among other things, operates to immunize any resulting testimonial statements."

Isn't anyone else here bothered by the due process implications of Judge Alsup's demand to force Levandowski to give up a Constitutional right or be fired? I'm generally a fan of Alsup, but this sets terrible precedence.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#248

Post by bradleyjg »

zaphar wrote: post #227
hackunomatter wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if he has a rock-solid benign explanation, why doesn't he come on the stand and testify?

Taking the fifth is not automatically a sign of guilt despite what some people might think. As I understand it it's not out of the realm of possibility for a lawyer to advise doing so even for completely innocent clients. It's not hard to get tripped up on the stand and sound guilty even when you aren't.

It's one thing to take the fifth out of an abundance of caution when all it might do is raise some suspicion. It's another thing when doing so is likely to cost you $250MM. It's hard to look at this course of events and conclude that Levandowski probably did nothing wrong.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#249

Post by abvdasker »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #94
tyingq wrote: post #5

Of course, whatever salary he was making is far less interesting than the direct benefit of the original Otto acquisition.

Levandowski got $250 million in Uber stock during the Otto acquisition and per a story on Techcrunch as of May 3rd, none of it had vested yet. Doesn't seem likely it will either.

The leaked termination letter in the comments above indicates that he is being fired with cause, which means that he will get little or nothing at the end of all this.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#250

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway13234 wrote: post #247

Statement from Levandowski's lawyers: https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pd... "The bite of the Court’s May 11, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Order, as it relates to nonparty Anthony Levandowski, can be summarized quite simply: 'Waive your Fifth Amendment rights... or I will have you fired. The choice is yours, Mr. Levandowski.' But, even when framed as a “choice,” this command runs counter to ne…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN