Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#221

Post by ta999999171 » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 3:46 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #218

rwmj wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turns out, people are legally allowed to drive while being really shitty drivers The UK actually has a law against this, see "Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving (Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988, amended by the Road Safety Act 2006, s. 20)" here: http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-facts-a-resources/facts/497-... It means you can be prosecuted for causing a death in a moment of inattention. It's…

It’s illegal to run people over by accident in the US too (if it was feasibly avoidable). The parent’s point was that prosecutors usually exercise their discretion not to charge them.

...because we have no solid public transportation in most parts, and driving has become a right instead of the privilege it should be.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#222

Post by xxcode » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

Peanuts

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#223

Post by xxcode » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

He can easily get a job that pays 10M a year

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#224

Post by lokar » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #199

bogomipz wrote: post #166

>"However, Levandowski personally filed today for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, stating that the presumptive $179M debt quite exceeds his assets, which he estimates at somewhere between $50M and $100M." Could someone with a legal background say what this means in practical terms? Stating you have assets worth "between $50M and $100M" while declaring bankruptcy obviously looks absurd on it's face but I'm guessing there's muc…

Well, $100M is a lot less than $197M. Bankruptcy doesn't mean "out of money" it means that you have debts that you have no way of paying. I would expect a bankruptcy court to force him to liquidate almost all of that $100M to pay the judgement. I don't know if an arbitration judgement like this can be discharged through bankruptcy, some judgements and penalties cannot.

Also, he probably has other debts, and this process will sort out who gets what (since not everyone can get the full amount they are owed).

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#225

Post by bagacrap » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

xxcode wrote: post #222

Peanuts

I'd happily take some peanuts if you have any to spare

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#226

Post by MrSandman » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #148

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #135

It feels perverse that when Uber's stolen technology killed a pedestrian, nobody was held liable and in fact no charges were pressed and no civil lawsuits were filed. But the person who stole that technology was indicted and is getting financially destroyed.

They never actually used the stolen tech, right? It wasn't good enough. They hit the pedestrian solely on their own tech, which (clearly, in hindsight) wasn't good enough either.

It hasn’t even been decided if anything was stolen in the first place. It’s still in court. Only a civil trial has been settled.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#227

Post by MrSandman » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

engineeringwoke wrote: post #168

chongli wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even in this case. Does Anthony Levandowski deserve to become homeless and destitute for what he did? No. This is going to hurt him far, far more than what he did could ever have hurt Google. Yeah, maybe Google would have lost more than this on paper, but definitely not in terms of marginal utility. Google remains an extremely wealthy and powerful company and now Anthony is broke.

He should've gone to jail, like people are supposed to when they commit fraud.

Fraud? What? This trial hasn’t even gone to court. You’re making blanket statements about someone’s life based on accusations from a Big Tech company and their PR teams. This person has been accused -not convicted and is going bankrupt because he is fighting Google. I know this is a Bay Area forum - half of you probably work for Google but give me a break. They steal personal information from everyone who uses their products every single day. They buy up an competition - they don’t play fair. They are the largest advertising company in the world - let’s not pretend like they’re more than that. Or they are some virtuous company that wouldn’t personally go after someone who is a threat to them and working with a competitor. Destroying others so theirs is positioned to raise 2 Billion dollars. This guy just got caught in the crossfire. This is just parroting headlines.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#228

Post by carapace » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

dodobirdlord wrote: post #145

cyphar wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That covers the civil side of things, but GPs point about criminal charges still applies. Yeah, they might have signed an NDA but I don't think those can restrict what can be uncovered during discovery (but I could be wrong -- IANAL).

Sure, but I'm sure some prosecutor took a look at it and decided it wasn't worthwhile. People get killed in accidents all the time, and frequently nobody gets charged with anything. A person being killed in a car accident while jaywalking at night because the driver wasn't paying attention particularly well is a story as old as cars, and usually doesn't result in jail time. Turns out, people are legally allowed to dr…

> A person being killed in a car accident

But they weren't killed in a car accident, she was killed in a robot accident.

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#229

Post by carapace » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

econcon wrote: post #158

One previous fraud man once told me when you acquire money through fraud, spend it all on powerful people who can reciprocate those favours later when all your assets are seized. They can confiscate the money/assets, can they stop the barters who of which they've no records?

Don't coach people on criminal behaviour??

Re: Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google

#230

Post by zsandwich » Thu, Mar 05, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

What the case was about is employee mobility, competition, and the onerous employee agreements with secretive and punitive arbitration clauses that Big Tech forces their employees to sign. So yes, Anthony may have lost his case but that’s because all employees - especially high prized ones like him - are forced into these agreements and play on an uneven playing field. Thankfully there have been recent improvements in easing these when it comes to sexual harrasment, of which Google is a major violator and leading example, but don’t kid yourself the problem is not solved. In all other respects all tech workers are subject to these super stringent employment terms and secretive arbitrations controlled by the tech giants. And if they can try and destroy a big deal employee like Anthony like this, what hope is there for the average tech worker.