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

151–160 of 358 posts

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

#151

Post by matt4077 »

komali2 wrote: post #143
vuln wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find this to be the same. What you did could be defended easily by saying it was an accident and you behavior would have been nonmalicious. You didn't purposely back up some old files, start a new company with the same exact tech from those said files then sell the new company 2 months later for a cool 680mill. If you did that then yes your old employ would definitely have a case against you. If your story is…

All of the first part of the things you said is a part of the accusation. >Waymo says he took 14,000 documents, while Kshirsagar and Radu Raduta took only a few. Waymo is now asking for Uber to turn over those stolen documents as part of the discovery process My understanding is that part of the case is deciding if it is true that 14,000 documents were taken. So again, the only known truth is that a single document w…

The taking of 14,000 documents is actually assumed to be true currently for the purposes of this case. That's because Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent.

Of course, the documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. Simply saying "I didn't do that" would be insufficient.

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

#153

Post by DannyBee »

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!

http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/subpoenas-using-subpo...

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

#154

Post by [deleted] »

bradleyjg wrote: post #70
kmonsen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if you already have virtually unlimited money loosing the job doesn't seem so bad.

If this case goes very badly for Uber they may well decide to turn around and sue Levandowski. He may not have virtually unlimited money after that.

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by stanleydrew »

milesrout wrote: post #108
WalterSear wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's great if you're the defendant...

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

#156

Post by woodandsteel »

jerf wrote: post #7
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…

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…

Seems to me that Alsup is saying he is trying to remain open to the possibility that Uber is not guilty, but that Uber's behavior so far is making it really hard to do that, and it better do something better real soon or he is might well exercise the nuclear option, namely shut down its self-driving program.

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

#157

Post by DannyBee »

A lot of people seem confused by the idea that a party can request personal documents someone else has.

Just like in criminal land, civil land has subpoenas. Parties can issue subpoenas for most things to other parties. In federal court, civil subpoenas are covered by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 45.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

Outside of the exceptions listed, yes, you would be required to produce information you have.

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

#158

Post by matt4077 »

akiselev wrote: post #87
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…

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 like this little jab at Otto:

" If his truck driving company gets shut down because of theft of trade secrets on a record that he's not willing to deny, too bad for him. Too bad."

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

#159

Post by snowwrestler »

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!

Obviously there are limits on what a company can ask its employees to do. I don't think a company would get very far if it required employees to bring in nude photos or dress up in blackface or something.

But in this case these are files that are related to the day job, and are materially impacting the business. Seems like they would be on solid ground conditioning further employment on furnishing the files.

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

#160

Post by taneq »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #145
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As that would be arson I have some doubts it goes that far. It would be a very interesting whistleblowing case I suspect.

But the whistleblowing would be for "trying to force an employee to commit arson", not for firing them.
Post reply on HN