Genuinely curious about the malicious behaviour at the root of this legal battle: if the case, was it worth it from the beginning? I mean, is there a lesson for the millions outsiders out of the SV microsystem reading this? In many different environments, you lose your job, credit and reputation for much less than this and for a fraction of the potential money involved.
Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
41–50 of 224 posts
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
there was a joke posting on an internal alias that showed the internal /etc/aliases file for Google which had the mailing list going to '|/usr/bin/no'[1] :) I would be interested to know if anyone still there had ever tried that and gotten a yes answer. The three times I used the process it was always denied. [1] To understand the meta-joke there is actually a /usr/bin/yes program but in the standard distribution the…
Calling /usr/bin/yes no will yield you a working "no" program :).
Ah, the Indian head wobble.
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#43Worth remembering that Google paid this guy over $120 Million in compensation. He is a tech "1%"er, which really is saying a lot. That is hedge fund money. I'm not certain, but I think the average engineer would feel more loyalty to a company that has given them multi-generational wealth. I'm all for engineers getting paid, but in this case the guy didn't even have to do what most wealthy engineers do: deliver an act…
> I'm all for engineers getting paid, but in this case the guy didn't even have to do what most wealthy engineers do: deliver an actual successful product to market. Anthony's efforts led to Streetview and Maps improvements. Waymo is still using his LIDAR research. I think Anthony is totally screwed with this lawsuit, but I wouldn't belittle his engineering accomplishments.
Oh, I'm not. But I don't think the other Maps engineers took home $100 Million.
Google clearly thought it was in their best interest, but I stand by what I said: As an engineer, the most well beaten path to wealth is building something that sells. To get paid and not even have to do that is itself something of an accomplishment, though not one I'd be very proud of.
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#44Worth remembering that Google paid this guy over $120 Million in compensation. He is a tech "1%"er, which really is saying a lot. That is hedge fund money. I'm not certain, but I think the average engineer would feel more loyalty to a company that has given them multi-generational wealth. I'm all for engineers getting paid, but in this case the guy didn't even have to do what most wealthy engineers do: deliver an act…
Sure, but whatever he was or wasn't able to negotiate in compensation shouldn't drive the outcome here. He and his (former) employer came to a mutually agreeable deal; how much or how little that number was doesn't change the facts in this case unless I'm missing something?
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#45Genuinely curious about the malicious behaviour at the root of this legal battle: if the case, was it worth it from the beginning? I mean, is there a lesson for the millions outsiders out of the SV microsystem reading this? In many different environments, you lose your job, credit and reputation for much less than this and for a fraction of the potential money involved.
The rules are different for the handful of people operating at this level, same as high level politicians who get away with things that would put you or me in federal prison for decades.
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have to assume that the people are innocent until they are proven guilty. You only have to do that when you are the trier of fact (jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial) in a criminal prosecution. Outside of that, the rules are different. > If you fired Levandowski and win the case, then he sues. And loses, because at-will employment, and being suspected, even wrongly, of civil wrongdoing creating liabil…
Yeah, I am always confused by people who seem to think you need a good reason to fire someone. In almost every state, this isn't the case; as long as you don't fire someone for one of the defined illegal reasons, you are fine. You can fire someone because you flipped a coin, or because you just felt like firing someone.
That depends on the jury (and therefore the jurisdiction) actually. There have been several times when I made this argument in favor of removing some employee who was actively working to destroy a team and was made to jump through lots of hoops by corporate lawyers fearful of lawsuits.
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all the more interesting because Google makes it ridiculously easy to ask for that permission and get a legally unambiguous go or no go for any side projects. It's not like this would have been murky waters.
there was a joke posting on an internal alias that showed the internal /etc/aliases file for Google which had the mailing list going to '|/usr/bin/no'[1] :) I would be interested to know if anyone still there had ever tried that and gotten a yes answer. The three times I used the process it was always denied. [1] To understand the meta-joke there is actually a /usr/bin/yes program but in the standard distribution the…
I've never seen anyone get a yes for money making side projects. For Open Source projects which uses a slightly different process I've seen people get permission to do them without an explicit CLA.
It's pretty hard to find something on the internet or in commerce that isn't somehow competing with Google.
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#48Is there any reason not to be suspicious that Levandowski will just work on them unofficially?
he'll work for them _officially_.
>Levandowski will remain at Uber, despite his role change
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Google should hire him back.
Why on earth would they ever do that? Why would anybody hire him? He may be good but he's also damaged goods with a serious trust issue attached to his name. Hire me and you'll get sued by the largest tech companies on the planet is not a really good opener for a job interview.
With 100 Millions he still can create the company that will hire him.
Re: Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I am always confused by people who seem to think you need a good reason to fire someone. In almost every state, this isn't the case; as long as you don't fire someone for one of the defined illegal reasons, you are fine. You can fire someone because you flipped a coin, or because you just felt like firing someone.
That depends on the jury (and therefore the jurisdiction) actually. There have been several times when I made this argument in favor of removing some employee who was actively working to destroy a team and was made to jump through lots of hoops by corporate lawyers fearful of lawsuits.
Well, they would have to convince a jury that they were actually fired for one of the protected reasons. Often times lawyers will want you to document the reasons you are firing someone so that you can use them as a defense against a lawsuit claiming you fired them for a protected reason.