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

261–270 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#261

Post by throwaway13234 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #254
austenallred wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As easy as it is to hate on Uber, this is indeed troubling. Odd that you can tie such things to Constitutional rights.

The thing to note here, is that as far as Alsup is concerned, Levandowski isn't a party to the case. There's Uber and Waymo. Uber has been instructed to get information for Waymo as part of a civil proceeding in which Levandowski is not a party. To do anything less than their fullest to compel Levandowski to give that information to Waymo would make Uber liable. Its worth remembering that, at this point, this is only…

That's completely reasonable when it is an employee that isn't in a position where there is the possibility of criminal charges, but when there is, it's important that we give full gravity to the position we are putting the employee in. The lawyers really put it well by describing it as being between “the rock and the whirlpool".

Personally, one of criteria I would use to determine whether or not to take the 5th would depend on the general position of the public towards me. If the public generally thinks I am guilty before I've testified and they are generally taking in evidence and arriving at the conclusion that I'm guilty without truly considering the existing evidence, it'd would be stupid for me to testify.

I don't think there is a soul here that hasn't at least once had experiences where every one of their actions were viewed as having malicious intent by the peanut gallery. Once you experience such injustices firsthand as the accused, you learn empathy for others in similar circumstances quite quickly.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#262

Post by will4274 »

arkitaip wrote: post #184
blackguardx wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean this feature of Outlook? https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/microsoft_press/2013/04/29/...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#263

Post by gnicholas »

joshuamorton wrote: post #254
austenallred wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As easy as it is to hate on Uber, this is indeed troubling. Odd that you can tie such things to Constitutional rights.

The thing to note here, is that as far as Alsup is concerned, Levandowski isn't a party to the case. There's Uber and Waymo. Uber has been instructed to get information for Waymo as part of a civil proceeding in which Levandowski is not a party. To do anything less than their fullest to compel Levandowski to give that information to Waymo would make Uber liable. Its worth remembering that, at this point, this is only…

legalese note: I think you mean "adverse inference", not "adverse interference". I only note this because "interference" is a word used in some legal jargon (e.g., "tortious interference"), so this typo could be confusing to others.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#264

Post by grigjd3 »

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…

Fair enough. I don't know what role Uber played in how they hired/acquired Levandowski. The lesson I take away is, don't be a liability to your employer - Though that was kind of my prior to begin with.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#265

Post by watwut »

huebnerob wrote: post #153
kbenson wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Why they don't fire the person? This is ridiculously sleazy.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#266

Post by scott_karana »

Everhusk wrote: post #259

It's sad to see Uber destroy a talented engineer's credibility like this... Moment of silence for the man who once went out and built a self driving motorcycle on his own [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CYGT97i8qU

I think he ruined his own credibility via mass theft of his precious employer's files.

His current employer is irrelevant.

Plus, "on his own" is not correct. Team Blue 2005 had nine members: http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/TechPapers/BlueTea...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#267

Post by scott_karana »

acchow wrote: post #230
hackunomatter wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google owns a chunk of Uber, so I'm not sure they'd want to wipe out their investment?

Yeah, doesn't Google have something like a 6.7% stake in Uber? Even with share diluation by half, at a $60bn valuation that's still $2bn. Do we really think Google can win much more than $2bn in this Waymo lawsuit?

That valuation is predicated on Uber still being worth that much, if they end up guilty in criminal proceedings (for example).

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#268

Post by _pmf_ »

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?

> Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP?

It's doubtful whether this will be even admitted as evidence.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#269

Post by taneq »

dsp1234 wrote: post #170
kbenson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reminds me of the "accessed X thousand confidential documents" in the Carmack trial, as a way of saying "copied his mbox file."

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#270

Post by Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #189
mikeryan wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I don't know. If the court thinks there was a deal between Uber and Levandowski where they "fired" him for the duration of the trial, only to hire him back as soon as possible, that could lead to contempt of court charges, I feel. But IANAL either.
Post reply on HN