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

191–200 of 358 posts

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

#191

Post by debaserab2 »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #190
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…

Indeed he's the judge Judy of tech IP trials. The java one was the first I'd ever bothered following on a regular basis, very entertaining.

Judge Judy isn't even an actual judge, so I certainly hope he isn't the judge judy of tech IP trials.

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

#192

Post by kelnos »

throwaway729 wrote: post #85
dragonwriter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself. In a perfect world, being actually innocent would mean zero risk of conviction of a crime with a vigorous and dedicated defense, no matter what the prosecution did. We don't live in a perfect world, and it is, in fact, quite possible for a situation to exi…

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.

This bit is different: Levandowski has not been charged with a crime. There is no plea, guilty or not guilty, for him to enter. He is not even the defendant in the civil suit.

He (or his lawyer) believes that talking about these documents could open him to criminal liability (whether he's guilty of anything or not), so he is choosing to remain silent.

Now, if other evidence is unearthed and Levandowski is indeed charged with a crime, and it made it to trial, that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.

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

#193

Post by M_Grey »

praneshp wrote: post #189
M_Grey wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately for them, the combination of Google alleging massive theft, the issues around Applebaum, and the high profile exit of some of their execs, none of that is likely to work.

Hey, what issues around Applebaum? Some googling didn't help me, the most prominent result is a journalist called Anne Applebaum.

Well, in hindsight I can see that's my fault... Jacob Appelbaum. My bad!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891513

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

#194

Post by kelnos »

throwaway729 wrote: post #111
dragonwriter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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: Less…

I'm actually not sure it's theft. It might violate confidentiality agreements, and using those files outside the scope of the former employer might constitute unlawful use of trade secrets, but simply copying the files and bringing them home may not actually be a criminal act.

(I'm just putting this out there because I don't actually know, and hope someone else knows the answer. Not attempting to be authoritative.)

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

#195

Post by nl »

komali2 wrote: post #172
matt4077 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. >documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. pretty apparently Come on man, you know what angle I'll go for here. Why a…

>> 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.

> So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me.

That's how the 5th amendment works. It gives you the right to avoid self-incrimination, but if you invoke that right and there is other evidence against you then you'd better have some other way of refuting that evidence.

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

ekidd wrote: post #53
YCode wrote: post #3

Offhand, this kind of sounds like a parent asking their teenager to go and search their own room for drugs. "Nah, I didn't find anything. I found this plastic bag that looks like it mighta had something in it, but I'm pretty sure my friend left it here and it was empty when he brought it." "Okay son, go search again."

> Offhand, this kind of sounds like a parent asking their teenager to go and search their own room for drugs. I have expressed this attitude to corporate lawyers before, and asked them how the system deals with bad actors. Basically, if a judge catches you lying during discovery, they can issue a default judgement against you and impose very serious additional damages. For example: http://newenglandinhouse.com/2015/0…

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by ridgeguy »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #129
08-15 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That would constitute arson, and arson is a crime. It's not legal to procure criminal behavior, whether by an employment contract or by other coercive means.

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

#198

Post by kelnos »

openmosix wrote: post #114
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…

Related to (a), if you do want to start your side business in the same industry as your employer, you must clear it with them -- in writing -- first. Yes, there are many many situations where they will laugh and say "no", but you never know.

For example, I work at Twilio. Let's say I hypothetically have some ideas of things to build on top of Twilio that I could turn into a side business. Maybe these things are features that Twilio might want to build into the platform, or maybe not. If I wanted to start a side biz doing these things, it'd be in my best interests to clear it with Twilio first. They might say "that's out of the scope of anything we'd ever build into our product, so go ahead". Or not.

You don't want to find out several years later, when you're becoming successful, that your old employer has decided to stake a claim on what you're doing.

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

#199

Post by dottrap »

debaserab2 wrote: post #191
chadcmulligan wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed he's the judge Judy of tech IP trials. The java one was the first I'd ever bothered following on a regular basis, very entertaining.

Judge Judy isn't even an actual judge, so I certainly hope he isn't the judge judy of tech IP trials.

Judge Judy was a New York judge from 1982–1996, starting as a criminal court judge and then promoted to supervising family court judge in Manhattan, until her retirement (followed by tv show).

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

#200

Post by chadcmulligan »

debaserab2 wrote: post #191
chadcmulligan wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed he's the judge Judy of tech IP trials. The java one was the first I'd ever bothered following on a regular basis, very entertaining.

Judge Judy isn't even an actual judge, so I certainly hope he isn't the judge judy of tech IP trials.

Isn't she? Things I learn :-/
Post reply on HN