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

111–120 of 358 posts

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

#111

Post by throwaway729 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #91
throwaway729 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in principle and understand your point. But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client. At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.

> But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client. Okay, how about where they actually physically have the documents that are the subject of the case, cooperating with discovery would reveal them, but they didn't actually use them in the new job or take them with intent, e…

My assumption is that intentionally copying IP onto a personal device and removing that device from the office -- regardless of any actual intent to use that data -- is still theft. Which would make the former employer's claims truthful.

It's super unclear to me how you would accidentally retain a copy digital documents...?

Like I said, it's hard to imagine this scenario actually happening. But for good measure:

Lesson #3: Leave work at work and startup at home.

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

#112

Post by willglynn »

akiselev wrote: post #103
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…

(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 i…

This is a civil case, so Waymo's burden isn't "reasonable doubt", it's "preponderance of the evidence". In other words: is it more likely than not that Otto stole their tech from Waymo?

This is a much easier bar to clear as a plaintiff. It's the defense's job to make the case that it's more likely than not that they didn't do whatever they're accused of doing.

In this case specifically, one side has extensive computer records that strongly suggest wrongdoing, and the other side hasn't yet produced any evidence -- or even any statements -- contradicting that. Good luck, guys.

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

#114

Post by openmosix »

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…

If you work for a company, and you want to start a parallel project/business, some key points are:

a. Do not start a side project/business in the VERY same industry or about the VERY same product of your current employer (like in this case, Waymo/Otto/Uber). b. Do not use IPs, code, equipments, facilities, etc of your current employer (like in this case) c. Do not solicit most of your co-workers to quit and join you d. Do not download documents from your employer, save them on personal storage and then resign abruptly from the company

I have started several other businesses while working at large companies - if you don't get anywhere close to a/b/c/d you should be very fine.

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

#115

Post by throwaway729 »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #96
throwaway729 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? Avoiding an injunction against your business.

I think I see: You were comparing the GP to someone in Kalanick's position, not to Levandowski. I don't think Uber itself has pleaded the fifth - though they've made an argument related to pleading the fifth - so I misunderstood you. I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts: News has the problem that outrage generates clicks and views. The question of…

> I think I see: You were comparing the GP to someone in Kalanick's position, not to Levandowski.

I am considering GP's situation directly -- leaving a company to create a start up and then being sued.

If he didn't steal, he should say so to save his business. If he doesn't say so, he risks his business. That's the downside.

Of course, if he did steal, he should shut up and lesson #2 explicitly doesn't apply.

The present situation is different -- Levandowski's fate probably isn't tied to Uber's and certainly vice versa.

> I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts

I stand by the "don't steal" lesson :-)

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

#116

Post by woodandsteel »

It seems to me that even if Uber proves that Levandowski never downloaded the files to Otto, much less Uber, they still are in deep trouble unless they can prove that he never laundered the information in them through his brain to help Otto or Uber develop their technology.

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

#117

Post by mbreese »

revelation wrote: post #97
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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference Levandowski is asserting his right to remain silent and right now that is sinking Ubers ability to fight any preliminary injunction, given he is working in the exact leading capacity at Uber that these files pertain.

I've got to assume that not helping your employer's defense in a case like this has got to be a fire-able offense. Then at least Uber could sue him too in order to claim some degree of innocence. (Not that it would necessarily work - I doubt it would, but it's got to be a better strategy than this one).

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

#118

Post by montycantsin »

akiselev wrote: post #103
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…

(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 i…

No, that's bad for our justice system. It sounds like it isn't able to keep up with current times.

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

#119

Post by 08-15 »

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…

> Uber has the authority to say to its employees, "If you have anything at home you bring it in here

Wait, what? In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? That doesn't sound right... please, somebody tell me the US judicial system isn't that retarded!

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

#120

Post by AnimalMuppet »

manyoso wrote: post #101
bradleyjg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Or at least for Google to say, in effect, "fire the guy, or we'll get a preliminary injunction".
Post reply on HN