211–220 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is a very american perspective though. In Germany you are not allowed to fire someone for these reasons (you might be able to dismiss him for no reason at all but the contract will not be over for quite a long time) So the authority of a company firing somebody over not handing over their laptop can be reasonably questioned.
This is an American case, and it's being litigated in accordance with American law, so the judge is using American rules about employment to achieve the goal here. I would be surprised if there weren't some way to accomplish the same goal in Germany.
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…
You're missing the point. The fifth just says that you can't have your silence held against you. Once you answer the question by saying anything at all, then the answers can be used against you, especially if you're lying. I believe he's under oath in these proceedings.
> None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light.
No, we're talking about the judge's statements, somebody who has seen all the evidence and is speaking as a professional jurist.
And unlike the rest of the Uber accusations, he has gone on record with these statements after seeing some fairly strong documented evidence. The fact that we haven't seen it yet is immaterial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 :-/
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.
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 char…
I'm addressing parent's concrete hypothetical -- where the person accused of theft is the ceo of the company.
> that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.
I think I'm wrong here, actually :)
dragonwriter provides a compelling explanation, elsewhere in this thread, for why entering a "not guilty" plea is very different from stating "I'm not guilty" outside the context of entering a plea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 actually did something like this long ago (pre-2000) - emailed a set of detailed and very confidential sales spreadsheets to my personal email. It wasn't "theft" (and AFAIK nobody even noticed). It was so I could convert the spreadsheets to a proper Access database on my own time, since that's not what I was paid to do but it made my job a lot easier. I would probably have been in a world of shit if anything came o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually did something like this long ago (pre-2000) - emailed a set of detailed and very confidential sales spreadsheets to my personal email. It wasn't "theft" (and AFAIK nobody even noticed). It was so I could convert the spreadsheets to a proper Access database on my own time, since that's not what I was paid to do but it made my job a lot easier. I would probably have been in a world of shit if anything came o…
I've worked for employers who were 100% convinced this is theft, even without some intent to use that information, and even discussed very similar hypotehticals in on boarding.
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?
Levandowski however has criminal lawyers here because the judge's court order for documentation may bring up something that makes Levandowski a criminal, whatever it is.
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.
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.