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

Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 358 posts

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#101

Post by manyoso »

bradleyjg wrote: post #94
defen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether the judge is going to impute Levandowski's failure to cooperate to Uber. From the transcript: MR. GONZÁLEZ (Uber's lawyer): So, Your Honor, first of all, we have searched and we are in the process of searching all of our computers for the sorts of information that you referred to. And if we find those documents, we intend to produce those. In addition, Your Honor, we…

Sounds like he is. The guy still runs the part of Uber's company that is under question here. They could fire him, but they have not. They want their cake - not being penalized for his adverse inference - while eating it too - letting him run the part of the company that is in question. And they have not denied that he took the files in question. With no one disputing it Google's claim stands and that alone, with or without adverse inference, might be enough for the prelim injunction.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#103

Post by akiselev »

defen wrote: post #90
Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…

(IANAL)

Imagine this was a criminal case where person A is charged with hiring person B to kill person C. Exhibit A is a forum post made by person A asking someone to assassinate person C for $15,000, exhibit B is a $15,000 check from person A to person B, and exhibit C is the gun used to kill person C, legally purchased by person A a few months ago and left at the scene of the crime with person B's fingerprints on it. When called to testify in the trial, person B just claims the 5th amendment and contributes zero evidence either way to the trial. How do you prove that person A didn't hire person B to kill person C? That is easily enough evidence to satisfy a jury's "reasonable doubt" so how can you get out of such a predicament?

That's how bad it is for Uber. The above example is a no-win scenario for person A unless you can convince the jury that the check or the gun were planted by the police (or were otherwise fabricated evidence). Uber can't do that because Google's case is so strong and no one is able to deny the theft of all the files.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#104

Post by ABCLAW »

bonzini wrote: post #78
themgt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, reading through pages 14 -> 20 Uber sounds like they're in some shit. Essentially Levandowski wants to keep his criminal 5th amendment protections at the same time Uber is keeping him as head of the division and the judge thinks it already looks likely he stole 14,000 documents. Uber's almost trying to launder his criminal protections into their civil case while he's still running the department they accused hi…

> launder his criminal protections into their civil case Which they just can't do right? Fifth amendment can be used against you in civil cases.

Uber isn't claiming the fifth amendment. A senior executive of theirs is. Their argument is that his choices aren't theirs.

Judge Alsup doesn't seem very sympathetic to that line of reasoning.

He did not, however, decide upon that point at this stage, given that these matters were not properly in front of the court.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#105

Post by chc »

komali2 wrote: post #28
themgt wrote: post #2

'“To the extent Uber tries to excuse its noncompliance on the grounds that Mr. Levandowski has invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to provide Uber with documents or assistance, Waymo notes that Mr. Levandowski remains — to this day — an Uber executive and in charge of its self-driving car program. Uber has ratified Mr. Levandowski’s behavior and is liable for it,” Waymo attorney Charles K. Verhoeven wrote in a le…

Good, I'm happy he still works there. People should not be fired because of accusations. It opens the door for abuse of the justice system. Let's not fall into the trap of assuming Waymo is the "good guys" and Uber is the "bad guys." Leveling an accusation isn't hard. Anybody can sue anybody as long as you have enough evidence or a good enough argument to convince a judge to hear the case.

Leveling an accusation isn't hard, but making somebody plead the fifth in a civil case where they haven't done anything wrong is. When one of your executives is refusing to cooperate with an internal investigation because it might expose him to criminal liability, that's a little past "From my point of view, Waymo is evil."

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#106

Post by golfer »

Interesting statement here from the judge and Uber's attorney (Gonzalez). Gonzalez worked for Alsup at some point in their careers.

Judge Alsup: Look. I want you to know I respect both sides here. And everyone knows I know Mr. González from the days when he was a young associate and I was a partner, and he was working for me on cases. And he has gone on to be a much better lawyer than I ever was. But you shouldn't have asked for in camera on this. This could have all been done in the open. I'm sorry that Mr. Levandowski has got his -- got himself in a fix. That's what happens, I guess, when you download 14,000 documents and take them, if he did. But I don't hear anybody denying that.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784/Waymo-Ube...

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#107

Post by rlonstein »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #100
akiselev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who don't recognize the name, this is the same judge that learned some Java for the Oracle v. Google case (and has an undergrad degree in mathematics). Every time I read his name I know it's going to be a fun ride and the lawyers will not be able to get away with anywhere near as much shenanigans as they usually do. Although his ruling regarding API copyright in the Google case was overturned, he has a real…

I don't know where this guy stands on the political spectrum, but I know that I respect the crap out of him. He's got my support!

Ideally, his political leanings are not involved in his judicial decisions.

For whatever it's worth he clerked for the FDR-appointed justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas, was in the US Dept. of Justice under Carter and Reagan, was appointed to the federal court by Clinton, and is a registered Democrat.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#108

Post by milesrout »

WalterSear wrote: post #77
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty hard to catch if your only search interface is through the liar.

Moreover, I've seen 'mistakes' and intentionally 'last minute' delivery of documents myself at trials, along with what essentially amounts to blatant filibustering. It was considered 'part of the game'. No one was punished.

I've seen many cases thrown out of court for this.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#109

Post by empath75 »

fowlerpower wrote: post #40

This story is fascinating for tech people everywhere and we should all pay attention. We all have big dreams of starting our own company some day (I know do) and many of us work for big corporations that would rather we never go anywhere and work for as little as possible. (admittedly the markets are forcing them to pay us a lot but they aren't doing it out of good will). The outcome of this will teach us all very va…

This isn't really a gray area. He stole a bunch of documents on the way out, founded a new company based on IP he didn't own, and then sold it to another company. (assuming google's allegations are true)

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#110

Post by bonzini »

ABCLAW wrote: post #104
bonzini wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> launder his criminal protections into their civil case Which they just can't do right? Fifth amendment can be used against you in civil cases.

Uber isn't claiming the fifth amendment. A senior executive of theirs is. Their argument is that his choices aren't theirs. Judge Alsup doesn't seem very sympathetic to that line of reasoning. He did not, however, decide upon that point at this stage, given that these matters were not properly in front of the court.

Not talking about claiming it, but about "laundering it" as the parent comment put it. And in fact as you say, it's being interpreted as making excuses more than respecting the choice of their executive.
Post reply on HN