10 ms·

TL;DR: The "Bombshell" is Alphabet/Waymo's lawsuit against Lewandowski and Uber for stealing trade secrets, and an interpretation that Lewandowski formed Otto b

by beering 10y ago

TL;DR: The "Bombshell" is Alphabet/Waymo's lawsuit against Lewandowski and Uber for stealing trade secrets, and an interpretation that Lewandowski formed Otto basically as a cover to get a big payday from Uber in exchange for the secrets.

dantiberian 10y ago
The bombshell part specifically would be Levandowski arranging with Uber to steal Waymo tech, form Otto, and Uber would acquire Otto. In all of the reporting I read about this after the first filing, this was missed.
- kinghajj 10y ago
  If true, would that open Uber to lawsuits from their investors for misuse of funds?
  - dantiberian 10y ago
    The SEC opened an investigation into Theranos, so possibly? The issue with Theranos was more around their representations to investors though. https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/17/the-sec-gets-the-case-its-been-waiting-for-in-silicon-valley/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/17/the-sec-gets-the-case-its-...
- hammock 10y ago
  I am reminded of an HN comment from 206 days ago that seemed prescient, even then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315888 This is from the big Bloomberg article/interview that came out today: 'Kalanick began courting Levandowski this spring, broaching the possibility of an acquisition during a series of 10-mile night walks from the Soma neighborhood where Uber is also headquartered to the Golden Gate Bridge. The two men would leave their offices separately—to avoid being seen by employees, the press, or competitors. They’d grab takeout food, then rendezvous near the city’s Ferry Building. Levandowski says he saw a union as a way to bring the company’s trucks to market faster.' Which implies to me that the plan was for Uber to acquire Otto all along.
  - Judgmentality 10y ago
    Here's another comment from an HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12558078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12558078 "Otto was designed to be sold to Uber before it was created, there's a reason it was self-funded despite having nearly 100 employees by the time it was acquired. Anthony Levandowski met Travis Kalanick years ago and had been planning something like this for a while. It's basically an open secret."
    - transfire 10y ago
      But how do we know Google wasn't the one making that plan? I find it strange that Google paid Levandowski millions in bonuses after he quit abruptly and after they already knew he was starting a company with their IP.
      - mattmanser 10y ago
        The bonuses could have been historically earned?
        cvoss 10y ago
        Via a recent Bloomberg article [0], the (pre-Waymo) car project had an "unorthodox compensation system" resulting in "multi-million dollar payouts" that were somehow tied to the success/value of the project. A fascinating and weird way to incentivize hard work. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-13/one-reason-staffers-quit-google-s-car-project-the-company-paid-them-so-much https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-13/one-reaso...
      - the_duke 10y ago
        So Google paid Lewandowski a bonus to steal their own IP, launch a company and sell it for a large amount to Uber so they could destroy Uber with a huge lawsuit? Makes sense! (cough)
    - beamatronic 10y ago
      What is the illegal part of this? This happens all the time in the Valley. Did they actually steal source code?
- thrill 10y ago
  Yes, I think this could be a very big deal. As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company (via a federal judge's order once certain evidence was presented) and gather and present evidence of massive fraud, etc., and working entirely as an amateur in this effort, managed to aid in recovering assets and capturing the former CEO and sending him to prison for several years, I find stories of (allegedly) fraudulent action (and solid response) like this heartwarming. If Uber had no self-driving car program to speak of before talking with Levandowski, and discovery shows they basically started from that conversation, then that would seem to open up all of Uber to any discovery process - they can't justifiably claim "it's the self driving car division that did all this". This seems much more than a civil process from my reading of it. It could be great theater. If I was on Uber's BOD, I'd immediately relieve the CEO simply based on the allegations here, and if I didn't have the votes to do that, I'd immediately resign my seat.
  - ontoillogical 10y ago
    >As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company ... That sounds like an interesting story! Have you told it elsewhere?
    - thrill 10y ago
      Heh - usually after a few beers, and it gets even better. The first SEC attorney involved was a real stickler, but up for retirement in the middle of the process. His replacement was a real hard charger, and worked with me to get the former CEO incarcerated ... and he then went into private practice ... and a few years later got indicted for pulling the same scheme himself working with another small cap company as their adviser.
      - pthreads 10y ago
        I want to know the whole story so bad. You should write a book. :-)
        10y ago
- jwr 10y ago
  When I skimmed the original articles, that is exactly what I guessed — e.g. no way this was a coincidence.
- sschueller 10y ago
  With everything that has gone on at Uber including a former friend of Travis' accusing him of stealing the company concept itself, something like this wouldn't be a Surprise.
  - gumby 10y ago
    Although I am ready to believe almost anything derogatory about Kalanick up to and including eating bbq'd babies with mayonnaise (yuck), the idea of "stealing a company concept" is pretty lame. Lyft started with a different business snd pivoted to Uber's (itself all a pivot?). Did Lyft "steal the concept?"
    - dnautics 10y ago
      Not quite. Uber started as a hailing black car effort, then Lyft pivoted from ridesharing to hailing 'common cars' over a Hackathon iirc, and then Uber pivoted to uberX. History aside, this 'copying of ideas' is distinct since someone independent is reimplementing a general concept (which is not really protectable). You would be hard pressed to argue that burger king stole McDonald's idea of selling hamburgers, for example. I think in the Uber/Otto case the theft is pretty specific. The laws outline what it means to steal corporate secrets. (This is distinct from violating IP or copying an idea). Usually this sort of theft involves being privy to corporate secrets and breaking contractual agreements to not take certain information with you.
      - gumby 10y ago
        > I think in the Uber/Otto case the theft is pretty specific. I agree 100%. When you wrote "stole the concept" I thought you meant Uber's original business approaches.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - Applejinx 10y ago
    It must be very confusing and frustrating for the guy. It's just like Enron: all that behavior is super wonderful and exciting and disruptive and rewarding, until suddenly it's not. The kind of person who does this stuff, really doesn't understand even the concept of 'crossing a line', or indeed legality. Hence, it seems to them really offensive that anyone should get in their way, and up TO that point their self-confidence carries them and helps persuade others that they're the golden boy. The real lesson is 'how did we get here in the first place'. It's easy to bust the biggest megastar and make a story of hubris and disastrous, Icarus-like fall, but isn't it the very same system that put them there at that valuation? The rule seems to be 'Seem like the biggest monster around, but if we catch you actually BEING it, you're busted'.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
Bloggism at its worst. A blog post with an agenda making huge leaps of faith without bothering to keep a semblance of impartiality to try to show that Uber somehow conspired to steal technology. Without bothering to hear the other side. "From Waymo’s filings, it seems that they have Levandowski dead to rights on stealing their LiDAR designs." This is one of the dumbest quotes in the post. Of course the lawyer's job is to write up their side of the story. He hasn't even heard the other side of the story and he's already coming up with conclusions. That's pretty terrible.
- angersock 10y ago
  So, do you work for Uber full-time, or are you just shilling as a contract gig?
  - 55555 10y ago
    All uber shills are independent contractors. Disclosure: I used to shill for Uber but when I factored in wear on my laptop/keyboard (you have to bring your own equipment) I realized I was actually working for below minimum wage.
    - angersock 10y ago
      Bravo! ;)
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Reading the deposition, under oath, of the forensics engineer who investigated the situation basically made me agree with the blog post and even that quote in particular. I think they have him dead to rights, here, barring a miracle of explaining away very, very suspicious behavior and a mountain of circumstantial evidence. I would hope if I asked any of my source control clients to dump a bunch of stuff and then walked to another employer who oh by the way is doing something very similar, I'd be investigated as rigorously. I hear what you're saying, but I think you're being unfair. This isn't bloggism; I think it's a pretty solid analysis from a lot of available information. There is definitely another side, and it's definitely making an appearance in this thread, but I don't think it's unfair to say "yep, that looks like a hole in one." Certainly smells like one, and it's not partisan or agenda-based to say that. Could you elaborate on what you feel the agenda is here?

by beering 10y ago

dantiberian 10y ago

The bombshell part specifically would be Levandowski arranging with Uber to steal Waymo tech, form Otto, and Uber would acquire Otto. In all of the reporting I read about this after the first filing, this was missed.

kinghajj 10y ago
If true, would that open Uber to lawsuits from their investors for misuse of funds?
- dantiberian 10y ago
  The SEC opened an investigation into Theranos, so possibly? The issue with Theranos was more around their representations to investors though. https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/17/the-sec-gets-the-case-its-been-waiting-for-in-silicon-valley/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/17/the-sec-gets-the-case-its-...
hammock 10y ago
I am reminded of an HN comment from 206 days ago that seemed prescient, even then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315888 This is from the big Bloomberg article/interview that came out today: 'Kalanick began courting Levandowski this spring, broaching the possibility of an acquisition during a series of 10-mile night walks from the Soma neighborhood where Uber is also headquartered to the Golden Gate Bridge. The two men would leave their offices separately—to avoid being seen by employees, the press, or competitors. They’d grab takeout food, then rendezvous near the city’s Ferry Building. Levandowski says he saw a union as a way to bring the company’s trucks to market faster.' Which implies to me that the plan was for Uber to acquire Otto all along.
- Judgmentality 10y ago
  Here's another comment from an HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12558078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12558078 "Otto was designed to be sold to Uber before it was created, there's a reason it was self-funded despite having nearly 100 employees by the time it was acquired. Anthony Levandowski met Travis Kalanick years ago and had been planning something like this for a while. It's basically an open secret."
  - transfire 10y ago
    But how do we know Google wasn't the one making that plan? I find it strange that Google paid Levandowski millions in bonuses after he quit abruptly and after they already knew he was starting a company with their IP.
    - mattmanser 10y ago
      The bonuses could have been historically earned?
      - cvoss 10y ago
        Via a recent Bloomberg article [0], the (pre-Waymo) car project had an "unorthodox compensation system" resulting in "multi-million dollar payouts" that were somehow tied to the success/value of the project. A fascinating and weird way to incentivize hard work. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-13/one-reason-staffers-quit-google-s-car-project-the-company-paid-them-so-much https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-13/one-reaso...
    - the_duke 10y ago
      So Google paid Lewandowski a bonus to steal their own IP, launch a company and sell it for a large amount to Uber so they could destroy Uber with a huge lawsuit? Makes sense! (cough)
  - beamatronic 10y ago
    What is the illegal part of this? This happens all the time in the Valley. Did they actually steal source code?
thrill 10y ago
Yes, I think this could be a very big deal. As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company (via a federal judge's order once certain evidence was presented) and gather and present evidence of massive fraud, etc., and working entirely as an amateur in this effort, managed to aid in recovering assets and capturing the former CEO and sending him to prison for several years, I find stories of (allegedly) fraudulent action (and solid response) like this heartwarming. If Uber had no self-driving car program to speak of before talking with Levandowski, and discovery shows they basically started from that conversation, then that would seem to open up all of Uber to any discovery process - they can't justifiably claim "it's the self driving car division that did all this". This seems much more than a civil process from my reading of it. It could be great theater. If I was on Uber's BOD, I'd immediately relieve the CEO simply based on the allegations here, and if I didn't have the votes to do that, I'd immediately resign my seat.
- ontoillogical 10y ago
  >As someone who several years ago "managed" to take over a publicly traded company ... That sounds like an interesting story! Have you told it elsewhere?
  - thrill 10y ago
    Heh - usually after a few beers, and it gets even better. The first SEC attorney involved was a real stickler, but up for retirement in the middle of the process. His replacement was a real hard charger, and worked with me to get the former CEO incarcerated ... and he then went into private practice ... and a few years later got indicted for pulling the same scheme himself working with another small cap company as their adviser.
    - pthreads 10y ago
      I want to know the whole story so bad. You should write a book. :-)
      - 10y ago
jwr 10y ago
When I skimmed the original articles, that is exactly what I guessed — e.g. no way this was a coincidence.
sschueller 10y ago
With everything that has gone on at Uber including a former friend of Travis' accusing him of stealing the company concept itself, something like this wouldn't be a Surprise.
- gumby 10y ago
  Although I am ready to believe almost anything derogatory about Kalanick up to and including eating bbq'd babies with mayonnaise (yuck), the idea of "stealing a company concept" is pretty lame. Lyft started with a different business snd pivoted to Uber's (itself all a pivot?). Did Lyft "steal the concept?"
  - dnautics 10y ago
    Not quite. Uber started as a hailing black car effort, then Lyft pivoted from ridesharing to hailing 'common cars' over a Hackathon iirc, and then Uber pivoted to uberX. History aside, this 'copying of ideas' is distinct since someone independent is reimplementing a general concept (which is not really protectable). You would be hard pressed to argue that burger king stole McDonald's idea of selling hamburgers, for example. I think in the Uber/Otto case the theft is pretty specific. The laws outline what it means to steal corporate secrets. (This is distinct from violating IP or copying an idea). Usually this sort of theft involves being privy to corporate secrets and breaking contractual agreements to not take certain information with you.
    - gumby 10y ago
      > I think in the Uber/Otto case the theft is pretty specific. I agree 100%. When you wrote "stole the concept" I thought you meant Uber's original business approaches.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- Applejinx 10y ago
  It must be very confusing and frustrating for the guy. It's just like Enron: all that behavior is super wonderful and exciting and disruptive and rewarding, until suddenly it's not. The kind of person who does this stuff, really doesn't understand even the concept of 'crossing a line', or indeed legality. Hence, it seems to them really offensive that anyone should get in their way, and up TO that point their self-confidence carries them and helps persuade others that they're the golden boy. The real lesson is 'how did we get here in the first place'. It's easy to bust the biggest megastar and make a story of hubris and disastrous, Icarus-like fall, but isn't it the very same system that put them there at that valuation? The rule seems to be 'Seem like the biggest monster around, but if we catch you actually BEING it, you're busted'.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

Bloggism at its worst. A blog post with an agenda making huge leaps of faith without bothering to keep a semblance of impartiality to try to show that Uber somehow conspired to steal technology. Without bothering to hear the other side. "From Waymo’s filings, it seems that they have Levandowski dead to rights on stealing their LiDAR designs." This is one of the dumbest quotes in the post. Of course the lawyer's job is to write up their side of the story. He hasn't even heard the other side of the story and he's already coming up with conclusions. That's pretty terrible.

angersock 10y ago
So, do you work for Uber full-time, or are you just shilling as a contract gig?
- 55555 10y ago
  All uber shills are independent contractors. Disclosure: I used to shill for Uber but when I factored in wear on my laptop/keyboard (you have to bring your own equipment) I realized I was actually working for below minimum wage.
  - angersock 10y ago
    Bravo! ;)
jsmthrowaway 10y ago
Reading the deposition, under oath, of the forensics engineer who investigated the situation basically made me agree with the blog post and even that quote in particular. I think they have him dead to rights, here, barring a miracle of explaining away very, very suspicious behavior and a mountain of circumstantial evidence. I would hope if I asked any of my source control clients to dump a bunch of stuff and then walked to another employer who oh by the way is doing something very similar, I'd be investigated as rigorously. I hear what you're saying, but I think you're being unfair. This isn't bloggism; I think it's a pretty solid analysis from a lot of available information. There is definitely another side, and it's definitely making an appearance in this thread, but I don't think it's unfair to say "yep, that looks like a hole in one." Certainly smells like one, and it's not partisan or agenda-based to say that. Could you elaborate on what you feel the agenda is here?