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

131–140 of 358 posts

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

#131

Post by gsnedders »

throwaway4job wrote: post #20
jerf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not particularly committing to either hypothesis right now. If Uber is indeed screwing around with discovery I would imagine they're going to end up in very big trouble. I for one would pretty much consider that prima facie evidence every executive even remotely involved in that decision, including simply being aware of it, should be immediately fired by the shareholders and everything possible clawed back from t…

It's worth remembering a few other things: 1) If the suit is true, then it will almost certainly zero out the investors, and destroy the careers and fortunes of the executives. 2) Uber has a long history of keeping and promoting executives who lack integrity and show a willingness to break the law. As such, it is reasonable to assume that Google is making a good faith effort to argue the strongest possible case on th…

> 2) Uber has a long history of keeping and promoting executives who lack integrity and show a willingness to break the law.

Knowing almost nothing about US Federal civil law, can inferences be drawn from that (and other previous behaviour of Uber)?

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

#132

Post by Groxx »

CalChris wrote: post #12
jerf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's a completely non-substantiative quote from an attorney for one side that contains the implicit assumption that Uber really does have the documents and is actively committing crimes in discovery to prevent the discovery from working. Not only is it not an unbiased source, it's basically a source being paid to be biased. Which is fine; I am generally down with the philosophy of adversarial justice. But you s…

> No, that's a completely non-substantiative quote from an attorney for one side that contains the implicit assumption that Uber really does have the documents Implicit assumption? The first paragraph of the TechCrunch article says: Uber admitted today that it had found one of the documents Waymo alleges was stolen by a former employee — who left its self-driving car effort to join Uber’s — on the employee’s personal…

It's worth pointing out that the "former employee" in that quote was not Levandowski.

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

#133

Post by lexicality »

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!

Why would they not have the authority to do that?

If they want, your employer could demand that you wear pink underwear of a particular brand at all times when in the building and fire you if you did not.

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

#134

Post by revelation »

mbreese wrote: post #117
revelation wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

And the judge even suggests as much - Uber could order him to testify (in the civil suit with Uber as defendant) or fire him if he refuses. But he continues working there today.

Though it is difficult to imagine what he is going to say to counteract the very strong impression of some cloak and dagger data theft. And even if against all odds he comes up with some believable story, it's not like Waymo need him to make their case. IIRC, the start of this whole case was some board manufacturing house sending Waymo an Uber design that looked very much like their own. So the moment they move into expert testimony on the similarity of the two product designs Uber is going to be royally screwed.

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

#135

Post by johncolanduoni »

jeffdavis wrote: post #102

Aren't you supposed to settle criminal cases before civil ones? Is the guy formally indicted? If they just did the criminal trial first, he couldn't claim 5th protections, right?

You can plead the 5th in a civil case in the US, but depending on the jurisdiction the jury and judge may be allowed to hold that against you (which they are not supposed to do in a criminal case). This is even more interesting because Levandowski is pleading the 5th, and Uber is asking for it to not be held against Uber.

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

#136

Post by rhino369 »

jeffdavis wrote: post #102

Aren't you supposed to settle criminal cases before civil ones? Is the guy formally indicted? If they just did the criminal trial first, he couldn't claim 5th protections, right?

DOJ doesn't always go after trade secret cases, especially if there is adequate civil remedies. But even when they do, they often let the civil plaintiff do the heavy lifting and then come in with a criminal charge using the information obtained by the plaintiff.

Google probably can't wait until a long criminal trial happens.

Civil discovery is easier than criminal investigations.

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

#137

Post by TallGuyShort »

oh_sigh wrote: post #124
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?

It's not normal or appropriate for a judge to include that in his judgment. I don't think he brings up the lawyers to show that he seems guilty, but to show that he definitely is taking this seriously. Plaintiff has really good evidence, suspect has lawyered up in a BIG way, and the defendant is just kind of doing nothing. Whether he's guilty or not, I think the judge is trying to point out to them that this is a major case and they're the only ones not acting like it.

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

#138

Post by Animats »

ergothus wrote: post #35
oh_sigh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, there is no reason to believe that a bad actor would steal 14,000 documents from a previous company, and then on the first day on the job go and upload them to the company git server. If I knew I was being nefarious, I would keep those documents on a completely airgapped computer in a private (non-company) space, only reference them when I was alone, and then bring information into the company only through my b…

I don't disagree with your assessment in general, the problem is that when you take the set of "criminals", and then further drill in to "criminals that actually get accused", you rapidly change the ratio of "clever" to "think-they-are-clever". I'm not saying all criminals are stupid [Edit: stupid, careless, ignorant, poor at prediction, poor at risk calculation, take your pick] ...just that many are. And the really…

When you take the set of "criminals", and then further drill in to "criminals that actually get accused", you rapidly change the ratio of "clever" to "think-they-are-clever".

There's a DOJ investigator for white-collar crimes who has a sign in his office/interrogation room: "If you're here, you're not as smart as you thought you were."

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

#139

Post by komali2 »

chc wrote: post #105
komali2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Making somebody? How should he have reacted? What exactly is the point of pleading the fifth if by doing so you incriminate yourself?

I plead the fifth when I get pulled over, am I a criminal? I don't understand. It seems to me the absolute smartest course of action - place the burden of proof entirely on the opposition, give them nothing to work with you don't have to.

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

#140

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

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!

..."And if you don't do that, you're fired."

I am guessing they do have the ability to fire on those grounds.

Post reply on HN