Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#91

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #85

dragonwriter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself. In a perfect world, being actually innocent would mean zero risk of conviction of a crime with a vigorous and dedicated defense, no matter what the prosecution did. We don't live in a perfect world, and it is, in fact, quite possible for a situation to exi…

I agree in principle and understand your point. But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client. At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.

> But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client.

Okay, how about where they actually physically have the documents that are the subject of the case, cooperating with discovery would reveal them, but they didn't actually use them in the new job or take them with intent, even though the other people accused alongside did actually steal smaller numbers of documents, and use them in the new job without your clients knowledge, so that your only real hope besides gambling on a jury's inferences of intent is that a criminal case is never initiated because your clients possession of the information doesn't come to light.

> At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.

A plea is non-testimonial, does not open up cross examination, and does not open up threat of perjury. And, no, they don't have to do that if criminal charges are never filed, which is exactly what you are hoping for if you are invoking the Fifth in other circumstances because of potential future criminal prosecution.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#92

Post by vkou » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:45 PM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #31

bradleyjg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"that contains the implicit assumption that Uber really does have the documents and is actively committing crimes in discovery to prevent the discovery from working" I don't think the paragraph implies that at all. Rather it says that Uber has not threatened Levandowski with employment sanctions in order to get him to cooperate with its discovery obligations. Uber could do so without running afoul of the 5th amendmen…

He invoked the fifth. Uber could fire him, but I don't seriously expect them to be able to get more out of him than the court itself can. Would you rather lose your job or go to prison isn't a hard question to answer, after all.

If Uber fires him, they run the risk of him throwing them under the bus, in exchange for legal leniency.

That's a problem with criminal conspiracies - you either have to stand by your partners, or hold a threat worse then jail time over their heads. Easy for a mob boss, less easy for a unicorn.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#93

Post by faitswulff » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:46 PM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #87

Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

For those who don't recognize the name, this is the same judge that learned some Java for the Oracle v. Google case (and has an undergrad degree in mathematics). Every time I read his name I know it's going to be a fun ride and the lawyers will not be able to get away with anywhere near as much shenanigans as they usually do. Although his ruling regarding API copyright in the Google case was overturned, he has a real…

His middle name is Haskell :p

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Haskell_Alsup

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#94

Post by bradleyjg » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #90

Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether the judge is going to impute Levandowski's failure to cooperate to Uber.

From the transcript:

MR. GONZÁLEZ (Uber's lawyer): So, Your Honor, first of all, we have searched and we are in the process of searching all of our computers for the sorts of information that you referred to. And if we find those documents, we intend to produce those. In addition, Your Honor, we are searching Uber's computer that was assigned to all three of the people that are mentioned in the complaint. We are searching all of their individual Uber computers.

We're really here to talk about two things that are related. One is, anything that Mr. Levandowski may or may not have on his own -- let's just assume hypothetically that he's got something at home -- that is not something we have access to. And I just want to be forthright and tell you that. But the issue here is whether any of the stuff is at Uber. And we are searching for that.

THE COURT: Uber has the authority to say to its employees, "If you have anything at home you bring it in here, give it to Mr. González, and he will turn it over to the Court."

You have the authority to do that. And you also have the authority to say, "And if you don't do that, you're fired."

...

THE COURT: This is not a discovery thing. And if he doesn't testify to that at the deposition, well, I guess Uber -- you know, Uber is -- if you think this is going to help you, my preliminary view of it is it's not going to help you; and that if there's not a clear-cut path to showing that those 14,000 documents weren't used, then you're looking at a preliminary injunction.

On the other hand, maybe you can convince me that those 14,000 documents somehow none of them were used. Okay. That's a possibility. That has occurred to me that that's true. I just don't know. I don't know. But if Mr. Levandowski is unwilling to say -- hey, listen, I read in the newspaper that he said he did it so that he could do work at home. That's what I read in the newspaper. I don't know. So, look, if he's not willing to come clean, then that looks bad in a civil lawsuit. In a civil lawsuit.

Now, for criminal purposes, okay, maybe he's got the right to take the Fifth Amendment. But for civil purposes, there's a thing called adverse inferences.

MS. DUNN (Uber's other lawyer): I think one point we want to reinforce -- this actually sounds a lot like what Your Honor is saying -- is that if Your Honor is in the situation where he must draw an adverse inference against Mr. Levandowski, we would ask you to keep open the possibility in your mind that the adverse inference should not be drawn against Uber, which is a separate party. And it is our responsibility to come in and show to you that we have not used this and that we're differently situated.

So in that respect we agree.

THE COURT: Okay. I will say this: I'm not going to prejudge the issue without seeing what your record is. And it's conceivable, it's conceivable that that would fly. But it's also conceivable that I would draw the adverse inference against the employer who has the guy, who's taking the Fifth Amendment, who runs the company. To me that is a -- I don't know. I don't know what I would do.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#95

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #90

Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…

> What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer

As part of discovery, Uber searched personal computers of some employees (ones who weren't, to be sure, asserting the Fifth.)

It's kind of their problem if their own executive most central to the case won't let them do that; that's Judge Alsup's point.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#96

Post by MichaelBurge » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #75

MichaelBurge wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? I know from Psychology that telling a jury to disregard information makes it seem more valuable and true, but that's more speculative than what you seem to have seen.

> What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? Avoiding an injunction against your business.

I think I see: You were comparing the GP to someone in Kalanick's position, not to Levandowski. I don't think Uber itself has pleaded the fifth - though they've made an argument related to pleading the fifth - so I misunderstood you.

I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts: News has the problem that outrage generates clicks and views. The question of "Should a company distance itself from executives accused of a crime by a competitor?" seems better served by referring to decades of case law, than by reacting to any news article.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#97

Post by revelation » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #90

Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference

Levandowski is asserting his right to remain silent and right now that is sinking Ubers ability to fight any preliminary injunction, given he is working in the exact leading capacity at Uber that these files pertain.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#98

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:54 PM UTC

maverick_iceman wrote: post #24

CalChris wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, that's a completely non-substantiative quote from an attorney for one side that contains the implicit assumption that Uber really does have the documents Implicit assumption? The first paragraph of the TechCrunch article says: Uber admitted today that it had found one of the documents Waymo alleges was stolen by a former employee — who left its self-driving car effort to join Uber’s — on the employee’s personal…

How can they access an employee's personal computer?

"You will provide us this, or you will be an ex-employee."

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#99

Post by siliconc0w » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:54 PM UTC

It seems like Uber has to prove a negative here - because Google has evidence Levandowski took the files they need to show they don't have theM? Or that the files weren't involved in their self driving IP? Not sure how they're supposed to do that.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#100

Post by CobrastanJorji » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 9:55 PM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #87

Animats wrote: post #62

Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…

For those who don't recognize the name, this is the same judge that learned some Java for the Oracle v. Google case (and has an undergrad degree in mathematics). Every time I read his name I know it's going to be a fun ride and the lawyers will not be able to get away with anywhere near as much shenanigans as they usually do. Although his ruling regarding API copyright in the Google case was overturned, he has a real…

I don't know where this guy stands on the political spectrum, but I know that I respect the crap out of him. He's got my support!