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

121–130 of 358 posts

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

#121

Post by tannhauser23 »

siliconc0w wrote: post #99

It seems like Uber has to prove a negative here - because Google has evidence Levandowski took the files they need to show they don't have theM? Or that the files weren't involved in their self driving IP? Not sure how they're supposed to do that.

You come up with a discovery plan that both parties can agree with (or one that's imposed by the court). You figure out the scope of the search (which DBs, hard drives, phones, etc.), the search terms to run, etc. You do depositions of employees to figure out who and where else potentially relevant documents can be. Obviously you can't prove a negative, but you end up doing an exhaustive search.

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

#122

Post by mtgx »

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…

From what I gather the judge is only saying that things look very bad for Uber/their employee as it is. So he's basically telling them "Help me out here, and show us the evidence so we can see for ourselves if things are as bad as Google is showing them to be. Otherwise we just have Google's evidence to go on, and it's looking very bad for you!"

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

#123

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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.

His choice isn't Uber's. True, and legitimate. But Uber wants him to be able to make that choice, and still continue as the head of Uber's self-driving program. That's what the judge is very unsympathetic to.

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

#124

Post by oh_sigh »

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…

Is it normal or appropriate for a judge to make assumptions about a defendant's guilt based on the lawyers they hire to represent them?

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

#125

Post by AnimalMuppet »

empath75 wrote: post #109
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)

I believe that fowlerpower's point is that you should not assume that Google's allegations are true - at least not until they are proven.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

08-15 wrote: post #119
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…

> 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!

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by CobrastanJorji »

08-15 wrote: post #119
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…

> 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!

I mean, can't it? California is an "at-will" employment state, right? They could presumably fire an employee for refusing to straight up burn their own house down.

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

#130

Post by oh_sigh »

08-15 wrote: post #119
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…

> 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!

You forgot the rest of it:

> And you also have the authority to say, "And if you don't do that, you're fired."

Post reply on HN