241–250 of 358 posts
Why did Waymo sue Uber? They should have sued Levandowski---he copied (no, he didn't steal!) the files in question, after all.
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…
Note that this is really complicated because this is a civil trial, with a different standard of guilt (preponderance vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), and where invoking the 5th Amendment can definitely be held against you. If this were a criminal trial- and he did it correctly- invoking the 5th Amendment could not be used against him, but in civil case, it most definitely can be used against you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They should have litigated against Mr. Lewandowsky after he founded Otto using documents they claim to know he stole more than a year ago.
This judge is mighty impressive, and since it's so much in fashion these days to be suspicious of institutions, I want to highlight this passage: THE COURT: If you all keep insisting on redacting so much information, like -- and you're the guilty one on that, Mr. Verhoeven -- then arbitration looks better and better. Because I'm not going to put up with it. If we're going to be in a public proceeding, 99 percent of w…
So from what I understand, Google is litigating this in public, but their lawyers, such as Mr. Verhoeven, are redacting everything on their side they don't want public. This makes it sound like Google is doing this in public mainly to hurt Uber as much as possible in the court of public opinion. Am I wrong in interpreting Google's actions this way? Sounds like this and many other conflicts Google had with Mr. Lewando…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>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. Note that this is really complicated because this is a civil trial, with a different standard of guilt (preponderance vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), and where invoking the 5th Amendment can definitely be held against you. If this were a criminal trial- and he did it correctly- invoking th…
Many people have their opinion on whether Uber is evil or not, but any employer that forces you to give up a right that Constitution affords you if you're potentially facing criminal charges sounds evil to me.
If the court wants him to testify in a civil case instead of asserting his 5th amendment right, they should find a way to guarantee immunity or that he won't face criminal charges.
OJ Simpson pleaded the 5th too and then later took the stand because the criminal case was litigated before the civil case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ev…
edit: given that even a simple question was downvoted, I can only conclude that there are likely a lot of Google employees downvoting anything that doesn't support Google's side in this dispute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that your example has essentially no similarity with the situation in question, why would you ask? That is not a rhetorical question - I'm pretty sure you're capable of distinguishing the facts of the Waymo case[1] from "some documents ...[from] several years ago". So, why? [1] Meetings and other shady activity before quitting, logs of ~14k documents pulled, immediate aqui-hire, etc. etc. etc.
We have exactly as much actual evidence as what is in my situation. Unless I am mistaken, all that I have read indicates that the 14k doc pull is a part of Waymo's accusation, AKA unproven. The immediate aqui-hire etc could just be a slimy poach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Technically, arson is burning down someone else's property. It's not a criminal offence to burn down a house you own, though it is likely a non-criminal fire code violation.
"A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property." [1]
The incendiary's ownership or not of the property doesn't matter.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
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.