18 ms·

From another source to provide some colour: > According to a lawsuit filed today in federal court in California, Waymo accuses Anthony Levandowski, an engineer

• ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  It's kind amazing that Google keeps reiterating how their incredible security protects your data, and that even employees are extremely carefully monitored. Yet their confidential trade secrets were taken by a dude who seemingly didn't have access to them as part of his job (since he had to go install the software) and a portable hard drive. The post also says he talked about replicating their technology at a competitor with colleagues months before he actually stole the data too. Generally if you work on something confidential, and you start talking about taking it elsewhere, someone reports it or something. Sidebar question if there are any armchair lawyers around: While I expect Uber to lose this lawsuit based on the type of evidence being claimed here, is it also possible for Uber to sue the supplier for leaking their confidential data back to Google? Because that seems like an incredible lapse of confidentiality in itself. Or will the notion that it wasn't legitimately their confidential data in the end, make Uber's own claim void?
  • smilekzs 10y ago
    > is it also possible for Uber to sue the supplier for leaking their confidential data back to Google? My first reaction to the waymo announcement is also on this. "apparently inadvertently" sounds like a blatant lie.
    • bobdole1234 10y ago
      Chances are Google shares patent royalties with companies that help them build the technology they use, so the supplier was likely ensuring their continued royalties by informing on the infringement.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • JoshTriplett 10y ago
    There's a huge difference between security of user data and security of company secrets. Having access to the latter is not unreasonable; access to the former should be heavily restricted and closely monitored.
    • aiiane 10y ago
      And it is.
  • polishTar 10y ago
    There's a number of tradeoffs to be made between internal secrecy/silos and trust/openness in any company, and google tends to lean heavily towards trusting their employees when it comes to corp data + resources, designs, strategy etc. User data is an entirely different matter, and is appropriately treated as such.
    • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      It doesn't need to be about "secrecy", it's about "security". Even when you ignore the employee trust issue, and assume everyone at your company would never betray you, "least privilege" is still not just best practice for security, it's common sense. People should not be able to access data they don't need. If they need it, you can grant it. But the assumption should be that someone who doesn't use the design server shouldn't have access to the design server. I don't want to know about or see information I don't need to have at work. It's not that I'm not trustworthy. It's not that I would abuse it. I just don't need the liability that it gets out through me. Because your account credentials could get stolen. Your laptop could get stolen. Your laptop could get hacked into. Your laptop could get malware. Reducing the list of people who have access to a resource insulates against all of these things... automatically. And sure, all of those risks have other ways to mitigate them as well. But layers of security is key. And hey, it also stops employees from sneaking off with your data too.
• xt00 10y ago
  Yea that's incredibly bad if that's what that guy did.. in general for EE designs, the schematic/layouts are not that hard to deduce how you would do it if you are in contact with the company that makes the LIDAR device (the unique and difficult part -- basically just need to ask them, like "yo, how roughly should I interface with this thing and whats your recommendation on a number of the components.. and can you give me a reference schematic.."). So copying stuff means that the guy actually probably was clueless as to how it actually worked and planned to just hand it off to somebody else who did understand it -- so definitely super bad...
  • smilekzs 10y ago
    There however could be custom-ordered parts on the BOM, documentation of which might be under NDA.
    • xt00 10y ago
      Yes good point. That would be super obvious that they stole it then.. "yea, could I order the BA33525 part that you custom built for somebody else.. yea I know its undocumented, but I know you have it somehow...."
      • daurnimator 10y ago
        You do that sort of thing all the time though with electronics: I'll open it up, and find some undocumented chip variant and see if I can source it elsewhere, I'll also search+email around to see if I can find a datasheet anywhere. If it's not printed on the chip you'll probably be able to get it out of JTAG.
        • CPLX 10y ago
          Sure, when you have physical access to the device, which wouldn't seem to apply at all here.
      • guelo 10y ago
        From the medium post "downloaded additional highly confidential information pertaining to our custom-built LiDAR including supplier lists, manufacturing details and statements of work with highly technical information."
• xt00 10y ago
  I'm sure it doesn't sit well with google that a group of guys left and started a self-driving company that very quickly was acquired for a ton of money.. Most likely google wants to get a piece of the action since essentially they practically deserve it if their IP is being used to help the company make their technology.
  • valkea 10y ago
    Sure, that's what Google's lawyers claim.
  • wingless 10y ago
    Why would it? Imagine being a Google/Alphabet shareholder.
• gwern 10y ago
  On the other hand, we know that public statements about lawsuits are always a pack of lies as everyone tries to look as wronged as possible: remember YC's bluster about the Cruise co-founder lawsuit, right before they had to settle for dozens/hundreds of millions? or remember the Oculus lawsuit where they alleged almost the exact same thing (Carmack stealing thousands of sooper-sekrit VR documents/files) and wound up only winning on some non-compete stuff and getting only a fixed award which was a fraction of what they thought they'd get?
  • sillysaurus3 10y ago
    remember YC's bluster about the Cruise co-founder lawsuit, right before they had to settle for dozens/hundreds of millions? Is this a guess? http://www.businessinsider.com/car-startup-cruise-settles-legal-case-involving-cofounder-2016-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/car-startup-cruise-settles-le... A representative for Guillory declined to discuss the settlement amount, but said the terms were "mutually agreeable." As part of the settlement, the parties have both agreed to dismiss their lawsuits.
    • gwern 10y ago
      It is an informed guess based on the fact that the settlement involved acknowledging, as the original YC paperwork said, he was a cofounder who owned 50% of a $1b exit. I haven't seen anyone in a hurry to leak claims that the settlement was for a trivial amount, nor did anyone at the time offer any good reasons for thinking that.
  • tptacek 10y ago
    Being ultimately required by circumstance to make a substantial payment to settle a lawsuit does not imply that the payer was lying, or even incorrect, in their defense.
    • gwern 10y ago
      I think losing a lawsuit is definitely evidence for claims being false just as winning correlates with telling the truth about not doing wrong things, and if it is true that there is no correlation whatsoever between losing a lawsuit and making false claims, then the legal system has failed utterly (and incidentally, you have given me a great idea for a business model). Given the adversarial nature of the system and the many past comments on HN to take claims by litigants with very large grains of salt when it came to the Oracle or Facebook or Oculus lawsuits, I'm surprised at the apparent credulity on display. Google will huff and puff just as much as anyone else when it comes to lawsuits.
• leereeves 10y ago
  > I was confused as to what stealing a patent actually meant Indeed. The current title of the article is > Alphabet's Waymo Alleges Uber Stole Self-Driving Secrets Secrets, not Patents. If patents was the original title perhaps the author was confused.
  • vgt 10y ago
    The filing itself claims both [0]. [0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7dzPLynxaXuQjY3dkllZ2ZKb0k/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7dzPLynxaXuQjY3dkllZ2ZKb0k...
    • kbenson 10y ago
      Patent infringement, or patent theft? How do you steal a patent? If you steal (to be clear, illegally take) information and then use that to get a patent, is that stealing a patent? Is there case law on on something like that?
      • ABCLAW 10y ago
        Infringement. The cause of action for infringement begins on Para. 88.
• flukus 10y ago
  > stole 14,000 highly confidential documents from Google before departing to start his own company Did they lock down access or were they all on google docs?
  • nosuchthing 10y ago
    If you read the article: We found that six weeks before his resignation this former employee, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems, including designs of Waymo’s LiDAR and circuit board. To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints.
    • flukus 10y ago
      Yep, I should have read all the way to the end. And now I can't delete so my idiocy as there for all.
• tajen 10y ago
  How does Google build such forsenics? Do they have spyware monitoring all their company laptops?
  • vmarsy 10y ago
    I would assume that the servers that host big trade secrets would log everything happening. There wouldn't be a need to log the laptop itself.
  • clay_to_n 10y ago
    What? Most version control systems have authentication systems, I'm pretty sure Google has good reason to keep audit logs of employee's access to schematics.
  • aidos 10y ago
    Yeah, they definitely have some really specific accusations about what went on: >>> To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints. The bit about connecting the external drive is interesting but I guess there's probably a ghost of that action somewhere on a drive (assuming you could more or less restore the drive before being wiped).
    • kbenson 10y ago
      It could well be that they have comprehensive debugging enabled for all their employees on work supplied machines. I know they beta test through employees, so that would make sense, to some degree. If the debug log is remotely synced, as an added benefit they get to review actions after the fact, which might be what happened here.
    • mahyarm 10y ago
      My guess is he still had a network connection up when he did the copy. These kind of things like JAMF, osquery and so on upload what you do on your computer on a fairly frequent basis. After a certain company size all of them do something like this, and most of them do not spell out the amount of spying they do on their employee's work devices and office space. Or he didn't do a secure wipe when he reformatted the drive and google inspected the computer when he returned it. OR google modifies their laptops and has separate chips logging this stuff, which would be fairly impressive! Or he didn't actually do any of this alledged stuff and it's all innocent. We will find out in the court case either way!
• chrisper 10y ago
  Is it just me or is the font on medium.com super blurry? Also, how did google know he downloaded all the stuff through some software?
  • caseysoftware 10y ago
    It shouldn't be hard. On Box, you can have it notify you every time someone downloads any file in a given directory or even specific files. I assume they have at least comparable infosec, if not explicit tripwires/honeypots in files that should never be downloaded.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• Gargoyle 10y ago
  Doesn't sound like anyone stole anything. Waymo/Google still had the documents, and copying isn't theft. Right?
  • xapata 10y ago
    In fact, copying can be theft.
    • wavefunction 10y ago
      Copying illicit data constitutes copyright infringement at its best, or industrial espionage at its worst. Theft is a different type of crime involving actual things.
      • csallen 10y ago
        Exactly! Btw, the specific term of art for "actual things" that are subject to theft is "rivalrous" (adj): a good whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers. You can commit theft of a rivalrous good, like an apple or a computer. You cannot, however, do the same to a file or a song or an idea. I wish more people understood this difference. Society would be better for it.
        • kazagistar 10y ago
          I'm not sure how society would benefit from a better understanding of a technical difference between these two crimes.
          • csallen 10y ago
            I take it as axiomatic that understanding the truth is better than believing in a falsehood. The latter almost always leads to gaps that can be exploited for potentially nefarious purposes. In this particular case, the reason that theft is wrong (because it deprives another person) is very different than the reason that copyright infringement is illegal (because the founders wanted to encourage invention by granting limited monopolies). If people believe that copyright infringement is theft, however, then powerful corporations like Disney can convince them that copyrights should last indefinitely.
• taneq 10y ago
  And this "over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems" is what, an engineering repo? (Edit: My money's on repo. It says 'searched for and installed specialized software', I'm translating that as 'installed git.') Or did he just take a copy of his mailbox? Sounds like a rookie move to be downloading this stuff on his work laptop either way.
  • Jabbles 10y ago
    Stealing is a rookie move. But I don't think there was a choice about using his work laptop. You can't connect an arbitrary device to Google's network. https://research.google.com/pubs/pub43231.html https://research.google.com/pubs/pub43231.html
    • dsacco 10y ago
      Nice link, this is a great read for anyone interested in endpoint security research.
      • throwaway23190 10y ago
        ... all which are easily compromised by a commodity phone. "Ah you know, I forgot my charger! Dang! I'll just plug this into the USB port of this sooper secure machine connected to this sooper secure network."
        • taneq 10y ago
          Computer says no.
    • kuschku 10y ago
      That's... an impossible task. All ways to identify a machine in a network are dependent on the machine itself — if properly configured, I can create a machine that can not be told different from another machine. Just extract the device certificate from one device and store it on another. Problem solved. Extracting data from the TPM or equivalent stores in ARM devices is also not impossible, as the DRM-breaking community has shown with extracting keys from TPM-based DRM.
• huangc10 10y ago
  yeah...dude is going to jail.
• ABCLAW 10y ago
  It sounds worse when you consider the potential for treble damages due to having knowledge of the infringement. Uber's negotiating position is doubly weakened by the fact that they are dealing with a reputation crisis at the same time as this claim has been brought forward. If Google has the information they claim they do, they have persuasive arguments to anchor their damages calculations on the basis of Otto's acquisition value. Times three. This is a sword of Damocles hanging above Uber.
  • ehsankia 10y ago
    I don't think I've ever seen Google go in the offensive like this, so this must be pretty serious.
    • sounds 10y ago
      Eh, Google doesn't use patent litigation as an offense strategy, but they _do_ pursue leaks. They treat leaks (that is, exfiltrating data while employed) very seriously. Offensive. https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/4emtua/nest_ceo_tony_fadell_went_to_googles_allhands/ https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/4emtua/nest_ceo_ton...
    • snarf 10y ago
      I think Alphabet probably views Waymo as their next big thing, and Waymo appears to have a sizable lead over everyone else in the self driving space which they want to protect. Remember, Alphabet is a major investor in Uber through Google Ventures, and their stake is likely worth billions. They wouldn't pursue this unless Waymo was of critical importance to them.
      • argonaut 10y ago
        I get that a lot of people on HN are highly skeptical, but Google Ventures claims to be completely firewalled from Google corporate (this issue is only made more confusing by the fact that Google Capital is not firewalled, and by the fact that Google corporate itself also invests in companies). I do believe them: many media firms have the same set up between the journalism and advertising departments.
• OJFord 10y ago
  > One of our suppliers ... sent us an attachment (apparently inadvertently) of machine drawings of what was purported to be Uber’s ... Ouch, this doesn't play well for the supplier either! Presumably if Uber wins, it'd have a solid case against the supplier. If it loses, or while Waymo v Uber is ongoing, might there be a case anyway?
  • blackguardx 10y ago
    This happens more than you would think. The mistake is probably compounded by two designs being almost the same and potentially the same engineers involved. I'll bet the supplier searched for the engineer's name in his inbox and responded to a big email thread about the project with many people involved. The Otto engineer's old colleagues got the email instead of him.
  • MertsA 10y ago
    >Presumably if Uber wins, it'd have a solid case against the supplier. Can they really claim that the supplier damaged them by leaking trade secrets if the trade secrets aren't theirs?
    • OJFord 10y ago
      > > Presumably if Uber wins, it'd have a solid case against the supplier. > Can they really claim that the supplier damaged them by leaking trade secrets if the trade secrets aren't theirs? If Uber wins, they are Uber's secrets.
  • non_sequitur 10y ago
    They'll most likely have a case, but it's also unlikely that the supplier would be big enough to cover any damages in the high 9-10 figures, they'd just throw in the towel and go bankrupt. Also an argument that "we stole stuff but you're the one who leaked it so you should be punished" won't play well with a jury.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• return0 10y ago
  He could have wiped it with a cloth or something. It's kind of scary how they could figure out what he did after the wipe.
  • etler 10y ago
    I'm guessing they saw it through remote access logs? If they see he downloaded gigs of data he wasn't supposed to be using for his job then that's very suspicious. I wonder how they found out that he copied it to an external hard drive though. I'll want to watch this case as it develops.
• retSava 10y ago
  I wonder what this "specialized software" is. It sounds like it could be a haxxor hacka-thing software, but likely it's just a FTP-client or similar.
  • retSava 10y ago
    I'm answering my own question, well sort of. The complaint doesn't state this, just "specialized software". This doesn't make the complaint lesser of course. There are all sorts of other tidbits in the complaint that further strengthens the case in favor of Waymo, it's an interesting read, and I'm surprised it's very readable even for a non-lawyer.
• elastic_church 10y ago
  Patent infringement is the least of the worries. Trade secret misappropriation can lead to criminal charges.
• eternalban 10y ago
  > [...] Mr. Levandowski searched for [...] Did he actually "search" on "his company-issued laptop" using company network or did he google it from his own machines at home? Anthony is likely a very smart person, so if allegations are true, I would think the latter is more likely. How does Alphabet know what he searched for? /G