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

Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#41

Post by __jal »

djsumdog wrote: post #30
Animats wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I met him when he was doing a DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle in 2004. He was an undergrad at UC Berkeley then, was doing the self-driving motorcycle, and had a successful startup selling a large folding tablet computer for viewing engineering drawings at construction sites. He does seem to get a lot done.

Some people are just driven that way. They don't watch much TV or play video games. They just eat, sleep and breath their designs.

> They just eat, sleep and breath their designs.

I think a different verb may apply in this particular case.

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#42

Post by huangc10 »

Great analysis and generally a good read.

However, to simplify, I think the biggest lesson learned is:

When you create a product at a company and use the company's resources, the IP belongs to the company. If you're going branch out and work on a related product, you better understand the legal issues first.

Also, stealing is bad.

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#43

Post by defen »

djsumdog wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google's not very tolerant of moonlighting. If you want to work on stuff and own it, quit. That goes for quite a few employers, especially if what you are doing is (1) competing with their products and (2) potentially successful or (3) both.

It's written into most peoples' contracts (in a way that isn't always obvious) but if you spend time at home working on stuff that's unrelated and then leave and found a company, if your employer tries to convince a judge they own your "on your own time, unrelated work," good luck with them not looking like shitheads.

> time at home working on stuff that's unrelated

Name something remotely related to the use of computers that is not related to things Google does. Note that it doesn't have to be anything you personally worked on at Google (or whatever tech BigCo™) - just something related to their business.

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#44

Post by ryandrake »

arkitaip wrote: post #10

Levandowski has absolutely tarnished his own reputation. Sooner or later he will be abandoned by Uber - how could they possibly trust him if his thieving goes back a decade? - and finding employment or trust in the industry is going to be extremely difficult.

So, why does he need to find employment in the industry? If I was a double-digit or triple-digit millionaire, I would not give a hoot about is how hard it will be to find employment.

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#46

Post by j_s »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #14

seems Levandowski is out as head of the self-driving project at Uber, will remain in some role but recuse himself from Lidar "Uber's self-driving car boss, Anthony Levandowski, is stepping aside amid legal fight with Waymo" http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-levandowski-no-longer...

Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14214772

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#47

Post by jonathankoren »

ziszis wrote: post #2

Waymo's allegations now go much deeper and further back than just Otto: * "Levandowski was deceiving Google almost from the moment it hired him to work on the Street View maps project back in 2007." * "Levandowski controlled a company called Dogwood Leasing that hired ex-Google contractor and 510 Systems engineer Asheem Linaval to use Google’s secrets to develop self-driving car technology." * "Levandowski founded ye…

> * "Levandowski was deceiving Google almost from the moment it hired him to work on the Street View maps project back in 2007."

I read this, and immediately wondered why Google didn't immediately fire him? Seriously. When you find out someone is taking your IP and using it for his own profit, you don't put the guy on a sensitive project. I don't care how talented he is, he couldn't be trusted.

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#48

Post by zaphar »

djsumdog wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google's not very tolerant of moonlighting. If you want to work on stuff and own it, quit. That goes for quite a few employers, especially if what you are doing is (1) competing with their products and (2) potentially successful or (3) both.

It's written into most peoples' contracts (in a way that isn't always obvious) but if you spend time at home working on stuff that's unrelated and then leave and found a company, if your employer tries to convince a judge they own your "on your own time, unrelated work," good luck with them not looking like shitheads.

Google's employment onboarding makes this bit unambiguous. You are told from the outset that if you have any current side projects you need to declare them when hired. Google will then tell you whether you can continue them and still work there. You are also told that if you wish to start any side projects while at Google the online form to tell Google of your intentions is at such and such a link. After you submit said form Google will either tell you that you risk legal consequences if you go ahead with said side project while still employed. Or that you are given explicit permission to go forward.

Google doesn't make this at all ambiguous or even difficult to get clear legal guidance on side projects. Levandowski has no excuses here.

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#49

Post by deepnotderp »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
Animats wrote: post #6

The use of OMW Corp, which is just a contract CNC machine shop, indicates the LIDAR in dispute has moving parts. It's probably just another rotating scanner. That approach is just for prototypes. Everybody serious is going with flash LIDAR or MEMS. If he'd been talking to somebody about custom GaInAs photosensor ICs, that would indicate a more advanced technology.

Does MEMS count as solid state or is it also seen as a moving part?

MEMS would be solid state pretty sure.

Re: Things learned from Anthony Levandowski's deposition in Waymo vs. Uber

#50

Post by deepnotderp »

Animats wrote: post #6

The use of OMW Corp, which is just a contract CNC machine shop, indicates the LIDAR in dispute has moving parts. It's probably just another rotating scanner. That approach is just for prototypes. Everybody serious is going with flash LIDAR or MEMS. If he'd been talking to somebody about custom GaInAs photosensor ICs, that would indicate a more advanced technology.

GaInAs would imply 1500nm or some non-standard wavelength, at this point I would suspect that normal silicon would do, but you just have to get down to a low enough price point.
Post reply on HN