Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#51

Post by jacksmith21006 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #21
megadethz wrote: post #6

Blackmail as a lawsuit. Have to be careful who you trust these days.

In blackmail, you keep the damaging information secret while you try to get the target to pay. Publicizing it doesn't work, because the whole point is for the target to pay to keep it secret. So, unless there is something worse that Levandowski would know she knows that would come out if the allegations in the lawsuit were litigated, this is not likely to be “blackmail as lawsuit”.

Best post here and clears it up for me. I just could not figure this out as made no sense. Once out there there is no black mail possible. But if you put some out there to show you are serious it is very effective.

What is unbelievable is how bad this is suggests the rest is off the charts. Well I view this off the charts so the rest thermonuclear.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#53

Post by chickenfries »

> On March 11, a day after Waymo filed a motion for an injunction against Uber, Wong describes Levandowski texting her to say he was bringing his boss home with him. Half an hour later, she says, Kalanick and Levandowski arrived, bringing with them a white bucket containing circuit boards and lenses, as well as legal documents for Levandowski to sign. She writes that Kalanick spent about five hours at Levandowski’s home.

Amazing. C'mon, she's heard you screaming on the phone to your lawyer. They know your last name. They can google you.

If I was working for this guy, and I observed the stuff that was going on, I would start talking to a lawyer too.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#54

Post by vkou »

Blazespinnaker wrote: post #39
crag wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will never reach a courtroom. He will settle long before that. He has too much at stake for her to take the stand and be questioned.

Legal way to blackmail. Cool! But, alas, she can be subpoenaed which overrides any gag clause.

Generally speaking, when you sue someone, it's often in your best interests to give them an opportunity to settle, instead of going to trial. You often do this by listing all the awful shit about the other person that you're going to air at trial. We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#55

Post by roflc0ptic »

giarc wrote: post #49
Audible_logic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she was aware of his legal situation and he was the terrible employer she claims, it seems feasible to me.

I'd say it's quite unethical to remain an employee simply to gain leverage for a lawsuit down the road.

What ethical rule do you see that breaking?

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#56

Post by cantrip »

throwaway_4179 wrote: post #27

Throwaway and being intentionally vague for obvious reasons. I knew Anthony some years ago. It was clear to me from day one that not all was right with his way of interacting with the world. I suppose his nanny apparently had enough emotional intelligence to pick up on this and enough situational awareness to take notes. I wish there were a safe way to share this, especially if it turned out to be useful in any way b…

What exactly are you sharing? It's not illegal to be an asshole. It's also not important to anyone that you knew him years ago and think he's an asshole, so where is the schadenfreude coming from?

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#57

Post by chickenfries »

giarc wrote: post #49
Audible_logic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she was aware of his legal situation and he was the terrible employer she claims, it seems feasible to me.

I'd say it's quite unethical to remain an employee simply to gain leverage for a lawsuit down the road.

What would the ethical thing to do be? Most people, especially housekeepers, can't just quit a well paying job without first making preparation for their next steps. If your employer is committing crimes and possibly implicating you in them, you might want to stick around to make sure that you have enough evidence to take them to court. Especially if they're a lot richer than you and have much better lawyers.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#58

Post by rayiner »

cantrip wrote: post #3

"Wong also claims knowledge of a large swath of Levandowski’s personal and business dealings. She does so in great detail, including dozens of overheard names, the license-plate numbers of cars she observed at a Levandowski property, and an extensive list of the BDSM gear she claims he kept in his bedroom." This sounds a lot like she was spying on him for trade secrets. Also, the BDSM gear is completely irrelevant to…

It’s relevant to the question of whether she had enough access to know those other things.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#59

Post by oh_sigh »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #18

Wong’s complaint says that on April 27 she overheard Levandowski and his brother Mike talking about how Levandowski might drive up to Alberta, Canada, to avoid prison. Given this new information, how much more likely does this make that he will be arrested to prevent him fleeing?

Wouldn't the US just have Canada just extradite him?

Re: Anthony Levandowski Faces New Claims of Stealing

#60

Post by giarc »

roflc0ptic wrote: post #55
giarc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's quite unethical to remain an employee simply to gain leverage for a lawsuit down the road.

What ethical rule do you see that breaking?

You see crimes being committed and instead of calling the authorities, you continue to collect data (license plate numbers, phone calls, conversations).
Post reply on HN