Live data from Hacker News

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

spectrum.ieee.org

61–70 of 71 posts

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

#61
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Doesn't California state law invalidate a lot of this? I signed non-competes that come with a little clause at the end: "pretty much none of this is enforceable in California. We have to say this because California is making us." Of course if you use company resources or IP you're out of luck.

Non-competes are a different issue. They are generally unenforceable in California, though exceptions may possibly be made for executives (I'm not sure, and IANAL anyway).

As far as the side-project policy goes, as you say, you have to avoid using company time or equipment. But that's the easy part. The tough one, as nostrademons mentions, is the requirement that the project not be related to the company's R&D ("actual or demonstrably anticipated" I think is the phrase). In the case of Google, almost nothing involving computers will get by that clause.

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

#62
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

It was actually significantly more ambiguous when I worked there (2009-2014), and presumably was even moreso in 2007. IARC didn't even exist until I think 2013, and it wasn't an online form at the time I left - you emailed some contact person, they discussed it in a relatively opaque committee, and then got back to you after an inordinate length of time. They had the standard California IP contract at the time, i.e.…

That's only ambiguous if you didn't contact IARC. I can't speak to before IARC was a thing. But after IARC you had a way to get an unambiguous answer as to how Google would view your side project. Whether by form or email that is still pretty easy.

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

#63
post #33

I'm kind of stunned at the amount of side-hustling that Levandowski seems to have been doing while at Google. How could the Google not have been aware of it, and how could it let it continue for so long? If I were more conspiracy-minded, I'd think they let Otto happen in order to feed a poison pill to Uber... In reality, I think they were just complacent, but still :\

> If I were more conspiracy-minded, I'd think they let Otto happen in order to feed a poison pill to Uber... That would be a very bad strategy if true so I highly doubt it. IANAL, but I believe under estoppel Google's knowledge of Levandowski's activity and implicit permission to continue would forfeit Google's right to sue later. Likely as soon as they came to know about it they took immediate action to prevent him…

[deleted]

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

#64
post #33

I'm kind of stunned at the amount of side-hustling that Levandowski seems to have been doing while at Google. How could the Google not have been aware of it, and how could it let it continue for so long? If I were more conspiracy-minded, I'd think they let Otto happen in order to feed a poison pill to Uber... In reality, I think they were just complacent, but still :\

> If I were more conspiracy-minded, I'd think they let Otto happen in order to feed a poison pill to Uber... That would be a very bad strategy if true so I highly doubt it. IANAL, but I believe under estoppel Google's knowledge of Levandowski's activity and implicit permission to continue would forfeit Google's right to sue later. Likely as soon as they came to know about it they took immediate action to prevent him…

[deleted]

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

#65

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.

"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. "

I mean, this should be pretty obvious to anyone who has so much as had a passing glance on their employment contract. I doubt very much that Levandowski didn't know this could put him in trouble.

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

#67
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.

That's what Advanced Scientific Concepts uses in their high-end LIDAR units. That gets them the sensitivity needed for flash LIDAR with hundreds of meter range. There are people talking about doing the same job with CMOS technology, and that may well happen, but I don't think the CMOS people have comparable sensitivity yet. Fraunhofer is working on it.[1]

[1] http://www.ait.ac.at/fileadmin/mc/digital_safety_security/do...

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

#68

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.

Practically speaking, has enough money to sustain himself indefinitely. Why would he care?

Perhaps he enjoys working at high profile companies on advanced high profile projects.

Having a ton of money means you don't have to worry about food, transport, or housing. In no way does it scratch the itch to build and sell cool new stuff.

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

#69
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.

I guess you don't need trust when you can use a person as a vehicle (pun shamelessly intended) to sue potential competition.

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

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't California state law invalidate a lot of this? I signed non-competes that come with a little clause at the end: "pretty much none of this is enforceable in California. We have to say this because California is making us." Of course if you use company resources or IP you're out of luck.

Non-competes are a different issue. They are generally unenforceable in California, though exceptions may possibly be made for executives (I'm not sure, and IANAL anyway). As far as the side-project policy goes, as you say, you have to avoid using company time or equipment. But that's the easy part. The tough one, as nostrademons mentions, is the requirement that the project not be related to the company's R&D ("actu…

What I'm trying to say is that it's unlikely that clause is enforceable under California state law.
Post reply on HN