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

31–40 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#31

Post by DINKDINK »

gumby wrote: post #7

I was thinking simply, "too little, too late" but then realized this could be quite interesting. Uber's model in most domains is to push hard over the line in the hopes of moving that line. More charitably this could be called "ask for forgiveness rather than permission". So canning Levendowski could be seen as simply a case of this. But Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, who could now spill beans on all…

>Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, who could now spill beans on all sorts of unsuspected malfeasance. At this point what has he got to lose? If he decides to cooperate with google things could get very interesting.

Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, because Uber has the capital to go after. I Am Not An IP Lawyer, but I'd guess that if Levendowski had substantial assets, he'd be named a party in the complaint.

My guess is that this firing is mainly a move to improve Uber's political capital "Look we fired the bad apple". I'd assume Uber has probably figured out how to tie his interests into cooperating with him (to the detriment of exposing IP theft) though maybe granting him equity or some sort of financial incentive.

Uber: Hey, we're really sorry that things didn't work out but "here's some equity for the time that you worked here" oh and by the way here's the estimated value of that equity if we win the lawsuit or don't win the law suit.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#33

Post by EnFinlay »

tmh79 wrote: post #17

OK: Here is some context for those who aren't current on the case. One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required This is one part of a number of things that came out of preliminary injunction hearings, other parts are (1) the breadth of…

One thing I've been confused about: didn't this whole thing start when a vendor sent an e-mail to Google that was intended for Uber, and the contents of the design in that e-mail were sufficiently similar to Google's designs that Google started this process. Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? Am I remembering or interpreting that story incorrectly?

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#34

Post by TallGuyShort »

jacquesm wrote: post #22
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required How does firing him equate to pressuring him to testify?

What else would you have them do? Jail him? Torture him? The company has limited tools at its disposal the ultimate one being to fire the person.

Although for the sake of this discussion I agree with you, I could have a lot of fun making a list entitled, "things companies have done to people that are worse than firing them."

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#35

Post by mulletbum »

openmosix wrote: post #12

Interesting. The situation between Uber and Levendowski always reminded me of the prisoner dilemma. If one bails on the other, might the other starts talking about what really happened? I think that staying together would have been the best course of action for Uber. Very interesting to see how this will develop.

Only if Uber knew they had done something wrong. If not, bailing on him now just places the blame squarely on him.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#36

Post by DINKDINK »

kognate wrote: post #29
it_learnses wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they promised to give him a large sum / stocks after everything is settled if he agrees not to talk.

In the USA legal system, this would be (at best) witness tampering and possibly obstruction of justice. Federal witness tampering and obstruction are things that _very_ few lawyers would knowingly participate in because you don't have to be successful to be convicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering

Uber: Hey, we're really sorry that things didn't work out but "here's some equity for the time that you worked here" oh and by the way here's the estimated value of that equity if we win the lawsuit or don't win the law suit.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#37

Post by kognate »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #18

Interesting. Could Levandowski throw Uber under the bus without incriminating himself? Additionally, I wonder if Uber has clawback agreements in place for their Otto acquisition.

Probably not. The biggest hurdle here is that it was Levandowski who took the documents on his own initiative. Even if he'd been asked by someone high up at Uber to steal the information he might escape criminal prosecution but he'd never keep his money.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#38

Post by bykovich2 »

hackunomatter wrote: post #6
acchow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand how damages claims work. Can someone shed some light? No company has made any money off self driving cars. Google/Waymo has definitely not. How can they demonstrate damages?

I think, basically, Uber will pay some $$$ to make the lawsuit go away and "license" Waymo's tech (which they already had, courtesy Mr. Lewandowski, but now will legally have it).

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

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#39

Post by [deleted] »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #34
jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would you have them do? Jail him? Torture him? The company has limited tools at its disposal the ultimate one being to fire the person.

Although for the sake of this discussion I agree with you, I could have a lot of fun making a list entitled, "things companies have done to people that are worse than firing them."

[deleted]

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#40

Post by csours »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #34
jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would you have them do? Jail him? Torture him? The company has limited tools at its disposal the ultimate one being to fire the person.

Although for the sake of this discussion I agree with you, I could have a lot of fun making a list entitled, "things companies have done to people that are worse than firing them."

And most of those things would also go on a list called "illegal things companies have done".

Probably not a good idea to do something illegal in the middle of a lawsuit.

Post reply on HN