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

261–270 of 358 posts

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

#261

Post by dragonwriter »

gtirloni wrote: post #257
woodandsteel wrote: post #242

What Google really wants is to prove that Uber is using the technology in the product it is developing. So the question is how Google will go about trying to prove that, and what Uber would need to do to prove it is not.

The case will proceed to expert witnesses in time. The 14,000 documents seem to be Uber's smallest problem in this case.

Yeah, I think it's quite likely that the patent charges, for which how Uber/Otto got to the designs is immaterial (except in terms of enhanced penalties for willfulness, which Levandowski's knowledge, with or without the documents, may be enough for), may be the real killer.

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

#262

Post by msravi »

Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

Fascinating. Where can we read more of these transcripts?

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

#263

Post by matt4077 »

ikeboy wrote: post #223
bradleyjg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether the judge is going to impute Levandowski's failure to cooperate to Uber. From the transcript: MR. GONZÁLEZ (Uber's lawyer): So, Your Honor, first of all, we have searched and we are in the process of searching all of our computers for the sorts of information that you referred to. And if we find those documents, we intend to produce those. In addition, Your Honor, we…

Is there any issue with judges reading newspaper articles about cases they're in? I know that jury members aren't supposed to, are judges fine?

Yes. Judges have extreme latitude in what they consider and how they run a trial. Consider the recent case in Hawaii ruling on the travel ban. Quote: "The Court will not crawl into a corner, pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it has."

(The reference is to the President's statements before and after the election)

Many seem to be surprised reading this transcript. Yet the tone this judge is using isn't anything special. You can see that he takes extreme care not to disadvantage one side, without pretending to be some sort of soulless automaton.

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

#264

Post by matt4077 »

geofft wrote: post #213
chki wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But what are Germany's laws about discovery? This seems like a problem that would have occurred even before computers: if an executive is handwriting letters at home to engage in illegal activity for the benefit of their company, does a German court have authority to search the home? This is an American case, and it's being litigated in accordance with American law, so the judge is using American rules about employme…

The comment you're replying to wasn't meant as a comment on the case, but to rebut the idea that "at-will employment" is some sort of universally-valid, natural state. It's just one of many possible answers, and every society has come up with their own.

Regarding discovery, I must say that the US system is actually more advanced than Germany, where, in civil law, there isn't really a doctrine for recovering incriminating evidence (or otherwise compelling evidence) from the opposite side, apart from a few specific circumstances.

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

#265

Post by matt4077 »

msravi wrote: post #262
Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

Fascinating. Where can we read more of these transcripts?

The Supreme Court has some pretty good writing. Or judge Posner.

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

#266

Post by TheCondor »

defen wrote: post #90
Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…

I have a friend who went through something like this. First off, depending upon the nature of the exact charges there are situations where if it appears you lied or hid or intentionally destroyed evidence the court can find against you and just assume the worst when punishing. So there is a reason to be honest.

Second, if the plaintiff desires it, they can sue you and your employer both. Name you both in the same suit. It binds you together and drives you apart at the same time. Let the law suit hang for a while and many people would want to just quit and try to settle, your employer could end up suing you in that case, especially if you doing that damages or appears to damage them. Maybe worse, say the company has the data somewhere and you destroyed your computer to prevent searching, you look like a total liar.

How it works is a trusted forensics guy that you hire, he copies all of your stuff. The lawyers hash out some agreements, your lawyers protect your interests but it's a discovery process that they are agreeing on. Think of it as search terms, they come up with some number of search terms related to the charges. Your lawyers are trying to protect your rights and limit the searches to what is alleged. its not supposed to be fishing. It's a game of sorts though, like a number of terms will be agreed to and then your lawyers want the other guys to waste them on bad searches. Then you pay your guy to search your data and report the findings to the court. He says he found x files with their copyright or that it looks like you formatted your drive the day after you got served or other things. And it's evidence in the case.

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

#267

Post by discodave »

I just realized how stark the prisoners dilemma here between Uber and Levandowski is. Based on what Alsup was saying today that if Uber can't produce counter-evidence by May 3rd, they are staring down the barrel of a preliminary injunction, they're damned if they fire him and damned if they don't.

1. Levandowski remains at Uber. Keeps asserting his fifth amendment rights, which means that Uber can't present evidence to thwart Googles theft claims. Judge files a preliminary injunction, sad trombone, no self-driving cars for Uber.

2. Uber fires Levandowski. Now, he has no reason to protect Uber, the incentives for him are to avoid criminal prosecution. He could even do a deal with Google or a prosecutor to cooperate in the civil case in exchange for avoiding criminal prosecution. Uber is then likely to lose the actual case, sad trombone, no self driving cars for Uber.

As others have pointed out, the stakes for Uber are incredibly high, they missed the china train and if they can't catch the self-driving-car train, then their $50+ billion valuation is up in smoke.

Man I wish I could be shorting Uber right now.

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

#268

Post by lovich »

life_on_mars2 wrote: post #251
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vendetta against Mr. Levandowski? Google paid him $120 million , and he then took that same technology for another multi hundred million dollar payday from Uber. Mr. Levandowski's avarice is basically something I can't really comprehend.

I can't find the article that I read that talked about Mr Levandowski's experience prior to Google and while at Google, but the impression I got wasn't that he left out of avarice, but because Google was too bureaucratic for his taste. His entire career looks like someone eager to build the future today, and it sounds like Google failed to be an enabler of what he wants to build. The more I read about Uber, the more…

It'd be a lot easier to believe he only had noble goals if he didnt get multiple 9 figure pay days out of it.

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

#269

Post by ikeboy »

matt4077 wrote: post #263
ikeboy wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any issue with judges reading newspaper articles about cases they're in? I know that jury members aren't supposed to, are judges fine?

Yes. Judges have extreme latitude in what they consider and how they run a trial. Consider the recent case in Hawaii ruling on the travel ban. Quote: "The Court will not crawl into a corner, pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it has." (The reference is to the President's statements before and after the election) Many seem to be surprised reading this transcript. Yet the tone this judge is usin…

There's a difference between considering details that have been entered into the record by the parties, and saying "oh I saw X in the newspaper". I assume in that case the plaintiff took the President's statements and put it in their filings.

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

#270

Post by toomanybeersies »

dlgeek wrote: post #256
sova wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude he learned Java for a court case? My respect for this man grows immense. What a G. I wish more people were like this "I need some more domain-knowledge to understand what's at stake? no problem, let me do some learning." Excellent attitude.

Continue to be impressed: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3524990/Gov-Uscou... https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3524989/d99f25c8-...

Interesting to note from the pdf titles that they use Wordperfect. I didn't even know it still existed.
Post reply on HN