Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#211

Post by bfstein »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #186

Not exactly unexpected given the court order earlier, interesting bit about how he has 20 days to decide if he wants to rectify the 'cause'. Presumably that would mean admitting stuff that he previously felt would incriminate himself so doing so would put him into more jeopardy on some axis. This has got to be painful for all the parties involved, I can only hope that people who are watching are thinking to themselve…

The 20 days bit is standard in termination for cause. You need to give the employee a chance to cure the damages before you terminate them for cause.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#212

Post by dmix »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #100
stouset wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's taking the 5th here for a reason, and that reason is that it is the advice that literally any lawyer will give you regardless of your guilt innocence .

He (most likely) forfeited his as of yet unvested $250 million in Uber stock he received as part of the acquisition. I suppose some innocent people would walk from $250 million on the advice of their lawyer, but not many.

Depending on how much he currently has wealth-wise, his reputation and credibility here might be worth much more than that in the long run.

He's still a bright engineer who could go on to do things in the self-driving car space. His expertise and exposure to the most cutting-edge IP is worth quite a bit. The less damage he gets out of this legally and the less dirt thrown on his name the more he will be able to turn that into real long term monetary value.

Not to mention the social costs.

If I was him I'd also being doing as much as possible to minimize the negative outcome of these legal proceedings for all who were involved with him.

I'd rather have, say, $20M plus a reasonable shot at making a lot of money in the future with a marginal reputation than risk my name being run through the dirt for a chance at $250M. Many smart people who had a shaky past have gone on to be successful. Talent/having the right skillset at the right time seems to trump (no pun intended) bad press ... in America especially.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#213

Post by jacquesm »

ianamartin wrote: post #202
bykovich2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think Google's out for blood? Didn't they announce a Waymo partnership with Lyft a couple of weeks ago?

I agree. Google doesn't want a license agreement. As pointed out below, yes, there is investment, but I think Google/Alphabet is out for blood and the investment dollars will be recouped in the civil settlement if not the arbitration with Levandowski. Either way, I don't think Google cares. They want to be first on the market. And based on how badly Uber has been flouting the law, I suspect Google gets there first no…

I don't think that's the whole story.

If Google would let it be known that you can take a bunch of IP and walk out the front door to a competitor that would be a very expensive signal.

So for them this is as much about this concrete case as it is about how Google will deal with situation where their IP grows legs.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#214

Post by kbenson »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #205
dsp1234 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically, the "specialized software" was TortoiseSVN, and the "downloaded over 14,000 ... downloaded 9.7 GB" was an SVN checkout. An SVN client being used to access an SVN repository is hardly unusual, certainly not in the way insinuated by the wording presented.

If I recall, Google/Waymo claimed in their filing that he had never used the Subversion repository in question from that laptop in the course of his employment, until that moment. They further claim he actually searched MoMA for how to access it as well as how to do end-to-end setup. He then left not long after that checkout. That is unusual, if true.

Yes, but it was also a previously unused laptop, so it's not all that unusual for someone setting up a work system to make sure their work access is set up. It is odd that it happened towards the end, and that it wasn't used afterwards, but I can also see it being something I might do in preperation if I had to take a short trip and hadn't set up a remote work laptop yet or my prior one was causing problems. That it wasn't used might have been that he ended up not doing any work (or any work that required the laptop) during the period he wanted it. A single normal SVN checkout during the setup would get every file in the repo by default.

Basically, I don't think it's hard to construct an entirely innocent narrative of events (assuming SVN access was normal for him). The later developments do make it look fishy, but since I doubt anyone would have thought anything amiss with the list of actions without the later events, it's far from a smoking gun when taken by itself.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#215

Post by Nelson69 »

mikekij wrote: post #121
tyingq wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising Should be fun when the due diligence docs come out, and we get Uber's view of how Otto went from a value of zero to $680M in 7 months, with only legitimate IP, 5 Trucks, and 90 employees.

This. How is this not the main crux of the argument for Uber's being complicit in the IP theft?

Aqui-hire. Google already established Levandowski as a hundred-millon dollar man, didn't they?

It's complete BS but that's the reason for the valuation, he can do it, Google already paid him that much and he 'wanted to do his own thing,' it's going to cost you to hire that guy.

Can you even spin up and staff a company in that time frame and integrate a lot of the technical parts in to something very meaningful in 9 months? With custom hardware and stuff that seems insanely tight (but there is a lot of money at play, you push hard) Even if there are off the shelf components that do most of the work and they're pre-integrated that seems insanely aggressive. I can only assume Otto didn't have any IP of real value other than a staff.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#216

Post by jcranmer »

yeukhon wrote: post #43

I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over. Maybe still too early to draw any conclusion, but I can't seem to have any counter potential excuse or reason to believe the self-driving programs weren't stolen. Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance? Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and ha…

> Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?

The Fifth Amendment is often misunderstood. It only prevents the government from being able to compel you to confess to your own guilt. It does not prevent the government from during conclusions from other sources, nor even does it prevent the government from making you provide evidence to support its claims.

For example, say you habitually recorded all conversations in your office, and one day you talk about covering up a burglary you ordered. You cannot be compelled to reveal this fact: if the government asks you "Do you record your conversations?", you can plead the Fifth, and the government can't order you to turn over recordings of conversations you may or may not have. However, if you admit that you do (or someone else tells the government), then the government can order you to turn over recordings, and you cannot plead the Fifth.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#217

Post by huac »

kbenson wrote: post #214
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall, Google/Waymo claimed in their filing that he had never used the Subversion repository in question from that laptop in the course of his employment, until that moment. They further claim he actually searched MoMA for how to access it as well as how to do end-to-end setup. He then left not long after that checkout. That is unusual, if true.

Yes, but it was also a previously unused laptop, so it's not all that unusual for someone setting up a work system to make sure their work access is set up. It is odd that it happened towards the end, and that it wasn't used afterwards, but I can also see it being something I might do in preperation if I had to take a short trip and hadn't set up a remote work laptop yet or my prior one was causing problems. That it…

Google alleges he then copied the files onto a portable hard drive and wiped the laptop, which shows a pretty strong intent to deceive.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#218

Post by radicaldreamer »

tomjen3 wrote: post #151
jonas21 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court can (and did) order Uber to: > immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and s…

How do you return a downloaded file without copying it?

Pretty simple: turn over the computer and/or devices it is on.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#219

Post by yeukhon »

oh_sigh wrote: post #171
yeukhon wrote: post #43

I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over. Maybe still too early to draw any conclusion, but I can't seem to have any counter potential excuse or reason to believe the self-driving programs weren't stolen. Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance? Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and ha…

Do you need to be hired by somebody when you have $150M+ in personal assets? You could start your own company entirely self seeded with 100+ employees with that amount of money, and still have a lot left over as a safety net.

Probably the way to go but I would not invest in someone like him if he is proven guilty. But I am sure a lot of people don't care about whether he's convicted, people will invest anything that can sell for money.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#220

Post by hackunomatter »

kbenson wrote: post #214
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall, Google/Waymo claimed in their filing that he had never used the Subversion repository in question from that laptop in the course of his employment, until that moment. They further claim he actually searched MoMA for how to access it as well as how to do end-to-end setup. He then left not long after that checkout. That is unusual, if true.

Yes, but it was also a previously unused laptop, so it's not all that unusual for someone setting up a work system to make sure their work access is set up. It is odd that it happened towards the end, and that it wasn't used afterwards, but I can also see it being something I might do in preperation if I had to take a short trip and hadn't set up a remote work laptop yet or my prior one was causing problems. That it…

Well, if he has a rock-solid benign explanation, why doesn't he come on the stand and testify?
Post reply on HN