4 ms·

What is the illegal part of this? This happens all the time in the Valley. Did they actually steal source code?

ry_ry 10y ago
That certainly seems to be the implication of the original article. I guess it's up to the legal process to decide if he did or not.
hwillis 10y ago
They did- lidar and other designs, and this is saying that rather than it only being Levandowski's fault, Kalanick knew what was happening from the beginning and Uber was essentially using Otto as a shell company. This is stated clearly in the third paragraph of the article. >the subtext of Alphabet’s filing is an even bigger bombshell. Reading between the lines, (in my opinion) Alphabet is implying that Mr Levandowski arranged with Uber to: >Steal LiDAR and other self-driving component designs from Waymo >Start Otto as a plausible corporate vehicle for developing the self-driving technology >Acquire Otto for $680 million
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Whether or not Google can prove in court that Uber knew of the theft will determine whether Uber is hurt a little or a lot by this.
ufmace 10y ago
The allegation is that he stole ~10GB of mechanical and electrical drawings for various essential parts, including the custom LIDAR. They claim to have forensic logs of his laptop of him downloading them and copying them to a memory card
- joering2 10y ago
  > They claim to have forensic logs of his laptop of him downloading them and copying them to a memory card Sounds like a farytale to me, unless those logs are captures and stored independently then otherwise anyone can claim having any kind of evidence against anyone involved. Besides, there might be many reasons of him doing that, let the backup be one.
  - zeven7 10y ago
    In general there might be other reasons you can think of that he would do that, but at Google he would have been told where and when he's allowed to store & retrieve company data. It would have certainly been a fireable offence for him to copy company data to a memory card. You're not even allowed to store source code on your work laptop.
    - beamatronic 10y ago
      At Google, is it common to develop code in some kind of cloud IDE?
      - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        Actually, yes, though not an IDE. The need for code on a laptop has been solved another way.
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    Except for the part where those designs were not only not discarded, but actually used in Uber's technology and subsequently accidentally CC'd back to Google. (If I'm following the story correctly).
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Read the original allegations, not the summary here. Just to start you off, here's some the things alleged by google you're missing from that summary: - He installed custom software to access the files. - The files were in a data store he had no normal access to. And here's my best guess as to why Google knows so much: - Google requires access to their networks using either your Google assigned device, or a pre-approved list of devices of your own (basically chromebooks). I know from past interactions with a friend that works at Google that they often give beta versions of software (Android) and/or hardware (Nexus phones, chromebooks) to employees to test. It's entirely possibly that quite a lot of debugging data is reported on some build. Additionally, that same friend noted that Google has a whole department dedicated to rooting our invalid access like what is alleged here, and since they control the devices available to access their network, there's really no conceivably limit to the amount of activity data they could collect about employee usage. In short, I see no reason why Google couldn't have as much data as they allege and possibly much more. to me, the fact that they waited until this stage to present it also seems calculated to benefit the most from those trying to defraud them (why not stop the forming of Otto initially, or the buyout?). If that's the case, I don't really have much sympathy for Uber, as they seem to possibly have been integral to the crime, and may have escaped punishment if it hadn't gotten this far. Edit: Whoops, said Waymo where I meant Otto,

ry_ry 10y ago

That certainly seems to be the implication of the original article. I guess it's up to the legal process to decide if he did or not.

hwillis 10y ago

They did- lidar and other designs, and this is saying that rather than it only being Levandowski's fault, Kalanick knew what was happening from the beginning and Uber was essentially using Otto as a shell company. This is stated clearly in the third paragraph of the article. >the subtext of Alphabet’s filing is an even bigger bombshell. Reading between the lines, (in my opinion) Alphabet is implying that Mr Levandowski arranged with Uber to: >Steal LiDAR and other self-driving component designs from Waymo >Start Otto as a plausible corporate vehicle for developing the self-driving technology >Acquire Otto for $680 million

ktRolster 10y ago
Whether or not Google can prove in court that Uber knew of the theft will determine whether Uber is hurt a little or a lot by this.

ufmace 10y ago

The allegation is that he stole ~10GB of mechanical and electrical drawings for various essential parts, including the custom LIDAR. They claim to have forensic logs of his laptop of him downloading them and copying them to a memory card

joering2 10y ago
> They claim to have forensic logs of his laptop of him downloading them and copying them to a memory card Sounds like a farytale to me, unless those logs are captures and stored independently then otherwise anyone can claim having any kind of evidence against anyone involved. Besides, there might be many reasons of him doing that, let the backup be one.
- zeven7 10y ago
  In general there might be other reasons you can think of that he would do that, but at Google he would have been told where and when he's allowed to store & retrieve company data. It would have certainly been a fireable offence for him to copy company data to a memory card. You're not even allowed to store source code on your work laptop.
  - beamatronic 10y ago
    At Google, is it common to develop code in some kind of cloud IDE?
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      Actually, yes, though not an IDE. The need for code on a laptop has been solved another way.
- arcticfox 10y ago
  Except for the part where those designs were not only not discarded, but actually used in Uber's technology and subsequently accidentally CC'd back to Google. (If I'm following the story correctly).
- kbenson 10y ago
  Read the original allegations, not the summary here. Just to start you off, here's some the things alleged by google you're missing from that summary: - He installed custom software to access the files. - The files were in a data store he had no normal access to. And here's my best guess as to why Google knows so much: - Google requires access to their networks using either your Google assigned device, or a pre-approved list of devices of your own (basically chromebooks). I know from past interactions with a friend that works at Google that they often give beta versions of software (Android) and/or hardware (Nexus phones, chromebooks) to employees to test. It's entirely possibly that quite a lot of debugging data is reported on some build. Additionally, that same friend noted that Google has a whole department dedicated to rooting our invalid access like what is alleged here, and since they control the devices available to access their network, there's really no conceivably limit to the amount of activity data they could collect about employee usage. In short, I see no reason why Google couldn't have as much data as they allege and possibly much more. to me, the fact that they waited until this stage to present it also seems calculated to benefit the most from those trying to defraud them (why not stop the forming of Otto initially, or the buyout?). If that's the case, I don't really have much sympathy for Uber, as they seem to possibly have been integral to the crime, and may have escaped punishment if it hadn't gotten this far. Edit: Whoops, said Waymo where I meant Otto,