This issue brings to mind the fight over Phillip Shoemaker at Apple. Self driving cars and the engineering behind it seems highly specialized. Will this case with Levandowski put pressure on engineers to stay put, a stronger, tacit non-compete and no-poaching rule?
Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
51–60 of 305 posts
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#52Earlier 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."
Companies can do worse things than firing people, but it's hard to legally compel them to do so.
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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. Yes. > Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? It may well be, at trial, in court. > Am I remembering or interpreting the story incorrectly? No - but it still has to…
Since it's a civil case, won't it only have to be demostrated to be more likely then not? I thought 'beyond reasonable doubt' was only the bar for criminal cases.
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#54I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over. Maybe still too early to draw any conclusion, but I can't seem to have any counter potential excuse or reason to believe the self-driving programs weren't stolen. Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance? Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and ha…
If your own testimony is the only available evidence against you, that'd be a weak case.
But keep in mind that in civil cases like this one (unlike criminal cases), prosecutors and juries are allowed to draw "adverse inferences" from your silence and take it as evidence that you're guilty. Levandowski certainly isn't doing himself any favors by taking the 5th.
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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. Yes. > Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? It may well be, at trial, in court. > Am I remembering or interpreting the story incorrectly? No - but it still has to…
[deleted]
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#56I 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 part…
> 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 is complying with a court order to do their utmost to compel him to cooperate and testify. This is not political and it's also possible that they still don't want him to testify either way but they have to be seen to do the "right thing" in the eyes of the court.
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#57I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over. Maybe still too early to draw any conclusion, but I can't seem to have any counter potential excuse or reason to believe the self-driving programs weren't stolen. Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance? Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and ha…
I think his career is very unlikely to be over, assuming he stays out of jail.
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your own testimony is the only available evidence against you, that'd be a weak case.
But keep in mind that in civil cases like this one (unlike criminal cases), prosecutors and juries are allowed to draw "adverse inferences" from your silence and take it as evidence that you're guilty. Levandowski certainly isn't doing himself any favors by taking the 5th.
If he is guilty, then he absolutely is; an adverse inference is nowhere near as serious as sworn testimony proving something happened.
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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. Yes. > Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? It may well be, at trial, in court. > Am I remembering or interpreting the story incorrectly? No - but it still has to…
[deleted]
Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
From what I understand, no that isn't similar enough on its own. I do not understand this part of the law "very deeply" but basically, there are a few things that google needs to prove [EDIT: NOTE BELOW](1) Levandowsky took information from google in some kind of physical way (files on a thumb drive, network transfer etc), it doesn't count if he just took the files by "memorizing" them in his brain (2) The informatio…
Are you sure about (1)? I believe you can steal trade secrets even if you don't take them in an embodied form.
It is true that you can't prevent someone from practicing their profession under the terms of California employment law (other states vary) -- but if you take reasonable steps to protect your trade secrets, the employees can be bound to honor that secrecy by not disclosing them to future employers.
Source: I've been involved in a trade secret dispute (it was nonsense but annoying), and I am definitely not a lawyer.