3 ms·

Not enough people read that feature, it was the best write-up on the lawsuit to date, from a reporter who has a relationship with Levandowski and other Googlers

• dantiberian 10y ago
  Author of https://danielcompton.net/2017/03/14/uber-bombshell https://danielcompton.net/2017/03/14/uber-bombshell here. I thought the Bloomberg article was pretty favourable towards Uber and Levandowski too, especially some of their reporting on the lawsuit without context: > Levandowski defended Uber’s lidar technology as “clean”—that is, not the product of stolen design documents—and told the company’s engineers that he’d downloaded the files to work from home. The major cache of documents that he downloaded were from an SVN system that he apparently had never connected to before (based on search logs). After he downloaded them and copied them onto the memory card, he wiped the laptop. > A handful of Google employees soon followed him to the new company. They fail to mention that those Google employees followed him out the door with confidential docs. In my opinion, the Bloomberg piece is trying to blunt the revelation [1] that Levandowski was consulting/meeting with Uber just weeks after leaving Google and forming Otto by comparing it with his earlier behaviour at Google. They do a good job of that, but didn't ask the hard questions of why he would consult for a direct competitor, especially when he had his own startup where he had the freedom to do whatever he wants. [1]: http://www.recode.net/2017/3/14/14923056/uber-google-waymo-self-driving-anthony-levandowski-travis-kalanick http://www.recode.net/2017/3/14/14923056/uber-google-waymo-s...