26 ms·

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

512 points by folz 10y ago

themgt 10y ago
'“To the extent Uber tries to excuse its noncompliance on the grounds that Mr. Levandowski has invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to provide Uber with documents or assistance, Waymo notes that Mr. Levandowski remains — to this day — an Uber executive and in charge of its self-driving car program. Uber has ratified Mr. Levandowski’s behavior and is liable for it,” Waymo attorney Charles K. Verhoeven wrote in a letter to the court (emphasis his).' Ouch.
- jerf 10y ago
  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 and is actively committing crimes in discovery to prevent the discovery from working. Not only is it not an unbiased source, it's basically a source being paid to be biased. Which is fine; I am generally down with the philosophy of adversarial justice. But you shouldn't read much of anything at all into that quote. For those of us on the outside, while we are justified in considering that a possible hypothesis, we are also justified in looking at the facts and considering that it may indeed be the case that these documents were never given to Uber. I for one have no trouble believing that the documents were downloaded by an individual but that they were never given to Uber, as I rather suspect "keeping more than one really ought from one's previous job but never raising to the level of actually giving that stuff to one's next employer" is really quite common.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    >...it may indeed be the case that these documents were never given to Uber. Then they should have their legal team pilloried and set ablaze for advising them to be this cagey.
    - jerf 10y ago
      I'm not particularly committing to either hypothesis right now. If Uber is indeed screwing around with discovery I would imagine they're going to end up in very big trouble. I for one would pretty much consider that prima facie evidence every executive even remotely involved in that decision, including simply being aware of it, should be immediately fired by the shareholders and everything possible clawed back from them. I don't consider that out of the question, but it's a pretty serious accusation on its own. Uber's kinda big to get away with that sort of shenanigan.
      - nikanj 10y ago
        Then again, a large part of Uber's success has been built upon shenanigans. It seems likely that they might develop an arrogance towards the legal system, after years of playing chicken with it.
        __jal 10y ago
        You can generally predict Uber's behavior by assuming it behaves like a stereotypical frat house. The behavior is: - Go for it and see if anyone complains - See if ignoring the complainers makes them go away - See if bullying the complainers makes them go away - Can it be solved with money? - Last resort: cheat. - If you get caught, call the lawyers; in public, whine about the raw deal you're getting.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        Unfortunately for them, the combination of Google alleging massive theft, the issues around Applebaum, and the high profile exit of some of their execs, none of that is likely to work.
        praneshp 10y ago
        Hey, what issues around Applebaum? Some googling didn't help me, the most prominent result is a journalist called Anne Applebaum.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    > 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 computer.
    - maverick_iceman 10y ago
      How can they access an employee's personal computer?
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        By asking.
        rhino369 10y ago
        They don't even have to access it. They just have to ask for the documents.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        "You will provide us this, or you will be an ex-employee."
    - komali2 10y ago
      Until the facts of the case come out, don't fall into the dangerous dark hole of fully buying into either story. The other day I booted my old galaxy s3 to put a new ROM on it and turn it into a dashcam. I found on it that google drive had offline backed-up some documents from a company I had worked at several years ago, and no longer did. Should I be sued for trade secret theft?
      - CalChris 10y ago
        Uber admitted today
  - bradleyjg 10y ago
    "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 amendment as that only binds the government. Google's lawyer is arguing that the court ought to treat that as constructive non-compliance. There's no implied allegation of perjury or other criminal behavior.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      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.
      - kmonsen 10y ago
        Also, if you already have virtually unlimited money loosing the job doesn't seem so bad.
        bradleyjg 10y ago
        If this case goes very badly for Uber they may well decide to turn around and sue Levandowski. He may not have virtually unlimited money after that.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - vkou 10y ago
        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.
  - ABCLAW 10y ago
    Judge Alsup's comments on pages 14 and 15 of the transcript mirror the statement you're attempting to discredit. Perhaps it is a bit more concerning when the argument is made by the trier-of-fact himself.
    - themgt 10y ago
      Yeah, reading through pages 14 -> 20 Uber sounds like they're in some shit. Essentially Levandowski wants to keep his criminal 5th amendment protections at the same time Uber is keeping him as head of the division and the judge thinks it already looks likely he stole 14,000 documents. Uber's almost trying to launder his criminal protections into their civil case while he's still running the department they accused him of stealing the IP for? IANAL but this does not sound good: Judge: "And if [Levandowski] 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."
      - bonzini 10y ago
        > launder his criminal protections into their civil case Which they just can't do right? Fifth amendment can be used against you in civil cases.
        ABCLAW 10y ago
        Uber isn't claiming the fifth amendment. A senior executive of theirs is. Their argument is that his choices aren't theirs. Judge Alsup doesn't seem very sympathetic to that line of reasoning. He did not, however, decide upon that point at this stage, given that these matters were not properly in front of the court.
        bonzini 10y ago
        Not talking about claiming it, but about "laundering it" as the parent comment put it. And in fact as you say, it's being interpreted as making excuses more than respecting the choice of their executive.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    Seems to me that Alsup is saying he is trying to remain open to the possibility that Uber is not guilty, but that Uber's behavior so far is making it really hard to do that, and it better do something better real soon or he is might well exercise the nuclear option, namely shut down its self-driving program.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  Its actually really impressive that Uber is standing behind him at all. Nobodies get fired from their job from any old baseless accusation.
  - Lazare 9y ago
    Uber has shown little adherence to principle but a great fondness for game theory. Game theory does not yield a lot of positive reasons why Uber would be backing Lewandowsky. > from any old baseless accusation The accusations may be false, but they are not baseless. They're so strong, in fact, that Uber is probably going to be hit with a preliminary injunction. Baseless accusations, by definition, would not have brought Uber to this stage.
    - elastic_church 9y ago
      Oh I see why my comment perturbed the collective conscious, but I wasn't making any statement on the merit of the accusation, just his continual employment and how impressive that is. I was saying that most people get fired for any accusation whether they have merit or not. This employee has an accusation that has substantial merit and is still employed. So thats actually broadcasting confidence amongst current and future employees regardless of what kind of thing gets slung their way.
      - Lazare 9y ago
        Your suggestion could be true, yes. In theory. But the obvious explanation (and the one Occam's Razor points us to) is quite different: That Uber would fire Lewandowsky if they thought they could benefit, but they believe standing behind him will minimize their legal liability and/or maximise their chances of benefitting from the purchase of Otto. A normal guy accused of something baseless doesn't have any pull on Uber and their top exec's; Lewandowsky might. In other words, your conclusion is that "if they're standing behind this guy when everything is pushing them to fire him, they'd NEVER fire a normal guy!" A better conclusion is probably "if they're standing behind this guy when everything is pushing them to fire him, there must be something really strong forcing them not to. A normal guy would still be screwed, because they don't have...whatever Lewandowsky has." I mean, obviously we don't know what Uber's top execs are thinking, or what really happened with Lewandowsky and Otto. But we know a bit about how Uber think in general, and we've seen some past decisions they've made. Do you really argue selfless altruism and employee loyalty is the most likely explanation here?
- komali2 10y ago
  Good, I'm happy he still works there. People should not be fired because of accusations. It opens the door for abuse of the justice system. Let's not fall into the trap of assuming Waymo is the "good guys" and Uber is the "bad guys." Leveling an accusation isn't hard. Anybody can sue anybody as long as you have enough evidence or a good enough argument to convince a judge to hear the case.
  - tajen 10y ago
    I'm happy some people still think like you. The respect for trials was lost at one point in recent history (and I don't know whether the million-dollar coffee and counter-argument explains it [1]), but the theory of justice is that the judge determines what is fair. I'm especially disgusted that so many men lose their jobs upon women's accusations: Without a judge, I can't verify that said men were guilty or just that a woman leveraged the system. And this happens with many other types of suspicion. [1] https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ
    - joshuamorton 10y ago
      This argument doesn't follow. Your link explains why frivolous lawsuits are more of a myth than most people believe. You then proceed to lambaste people for people bowing to lawsuits which, your source contends, are probably more reasonable than you think.
      - tajen 9y ago
        I don't really understand what you point out, and I believe this is the misunderstanding: > You then proceed to lambast people for people bowing to lawsuits GitHub and other cases aren't lawsuits, that's my point: They're just people being fired without fair trial. It doesn't prove there was harassment/theft/conflict/etc. What I'm saying is we should apply the presumption of innocence and not demote people preemptively, but help the real justice system investigate whether accusations are true.
  - chc 10y ago
    Leveling an accusation isn't hard, but making somebody plead the fifth in a civil case where they haven't done anything wrong is. When one of your executives is refusing to cooperate with an internal investigation because it might expose him to criminal liability, that's a little past "From my point of view, Waymo is evil."
YCode 10y ago
Offhand, this kind of sounds like a parent asking their teenager to go and search their own room for drugs. "Nah, I didn't find anything. I found this plastic bag that looks like it mighta had something in it, but I'm pretty sure my friend left it here and it was empty when he brought it." "Okay son, go search again."
- huangc10 10y ago
  I have to...completely agree with you on your analogy. You forgot to mention the part about the urine sample.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Also, there is no reason to believe that a bad actor would steal 14,000 documents from a previous company, and then on the first day on the job go and upload them to the company git server. If I knew I was being nefarious, I would keep those documents on a completely airgapped computer in a private (non-company) space, only reference them when I was alone, and then bring information into the company only through my brain(and probably, with a reasonable parallel reconstruction already determined).
  - ergothus 10y ago
    I don't disagree with your assessment in general, the problem is that when you take the set of "criminals", and then further drill in to "criminals that actually get accused", you rapidly change the ratio of "clever" to "think-they-are-clever". I'm not saying all criminals are stupid [Edit: stupid, careless, ignorant, poor at prediction, poor at risk calculation, take your pick] ...just that many are. And the really clever ones are often able to do it without even getting accused. So you're left with a group that has a LOT of facepalm-inducing members. And sad to say, even filtering the list for people in high ranking positions doesn't help that much. Apparently "actually be a clever criminal" and "be a successful business person" don't overlap a lot. (I imagine "ABLE to be a clever criminal" has more overlap...but most decide not to.) Side story: When I was a young kid (8?) my mom sternly told me "I don't EVER want to hear of you...committing a crime you can't retire on". Oddly enough, that was far more valuable than just saying "don't commit a crime". It had a logic my young brain could understand more easily than base morals or even evaluating the odds of getting caught. It inured me to a fair amount of peer pressure until I was old enough to decide for myself (and kids have few opportunities to commit huge crimes). Each kid is different, of course, but I recommend this to all parents of young children.
dsschnau 10y ago
Uber is basically pleading the fifth. Hahahahaha
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
MegaButts 10y ago
I get the feeling 2017 is going to be a very entertaining (from a news perspective) year for tech.
- seangrogg 10y ago
  I've been kicking around the idea of Popcorn as a Service.
  - MegaButts 10y ago
    I would like to invest in this idea. Food delivery is hot, and we need to disrupt the entertainment industry!
    - problems 10y ago
      You just write the app that matches popcorn providers with popcorn buyers in their area and charge a 2x markup - 5x during popcorn surges!
      - sophacles 10y ago
        Nah, the real money is being a MaaS provider. (Marketplace as a Service). Why try to strike gold when you can just get rich selling the gold-rushers some picks and shovels? It shouldn't be much more than an API and some customizable matching algorithms (e.g. proximity or pricepoint or keywords and maybe a scheduler or two). I'm only half-joking in that I wouldn't be surprised to find out this is a thing already.
        imh 10y ago
        Nah, too niche. Why try to strike it rich selling picks and shovels to gold-rushers when you can get richer doing logistics for those pick-and-shovel merchants? MaaSaaS is where it's at.
      - fuckemem 9y ago
        That'll hurt the movie industry a lot more than file sharing. Expect some lobbying on both sides.
checkdigit15 10y ago
"Judge William Alsup, who is presiding over the case, ordered Uber to search more thoroughly for the documents." Judge Alsup always winds up with the most interesting cases :-)
- sndean 10y ago
  Ohh, didn't realize this is the same judge who taught himself Java (https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-schmidt-page-damages/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-schmidt-page-damages/)
jankassens 10y ago
How would Uber find files on some employees personal device?
- codazoda 10y ago
  It's a good question, since the article also says that the employee is refusing to cooperate on 5th amendment grounds (which is likely smart).
  - sbov 10y ago
    It's a different employee. The article doesn't mention whether or not Kshirsagar has invoked the 5th amendment.
  - shostack 10y ago
    I wonder how much of that is the point of this exercise--to make the employee look guilty as hell.
caroherm 10y ago
What is the background story for this article?
- nyolfen 10y ago
  https://danielcompton.net/2017/03/14/uber-bombshell https://danielcompton.net/2017/03/14/uber-bombshell
ABCLAW 10y ago
It is surprising that Google did not push the court to appoint a third party discovery firm to handle the device imaging process and to provide a report to the court. Maybe both parties' intense desire for privacy in this matter has driven Google to this strategy. The seeming ludicrousness of the result - Alsup's "go try again, harder this time" - is not caused by this case's parties playing badly. It is caused by poorly defined and understood laws surrounding what constitutes a defensible search. Data handling in this stage of legal proceedings is imperfect, and can be manipulated by both parties to drive up the cost of litigation, or to strategically avoid disclosing the key breadcrumb documentation that would otherwise have led to the smoking gun(s). Edit: Please find the court reporter transcript here: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-29-17.html#text/p3 http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-... Judge Alsup's comments are fairly aggressive in comparison to most commercial litigation, but the no-nonsense tone is par for the course.
- wapz 9y ago
  I'm really surprised at how the search is going too (by the article). "Go find these documents." "Didn't find them." "Okay go again." "Okay." Now if you're an employee that has any of those documents and you weren't searched the first time, there's no way you'll be caught with the documents by the time the second search starts.
  - andreareina 9y ago
    My reading is that it's not the results being judged, but the process of the search. Given the high confidence that seems to be assigned to the claim that 14,000 documents were downloaded, "we asked our employees to give us what they have, and this is all we got" isn't good enough.
- lowpro 9y ago
  It's not so surprising given that if Uber doesn't find anything, Google would have a much better chance at the Prelim. Injunction. Hiring a 3rd party firm isn't needed since Google is ahead either way, and Uber doesn't need a third party firm to search its own system (or at least, hopefully they don't).
aresant 10y ago
This resolved to the Judge ordering a deeper search: "[The Judge] told Uber to search using 15 terms provided by Waymo, first on the employees’ computers that had already been searched, then on 10 employees’ computers selected by Waymo, and then on all other servers and devices connected to employees who work on Uber’s LiDAR system." Seems interesting that there's not a more comprehensive system or way to search for these since Google is clearly in possession of the specific documents they claim are stolen. The way they're continuing the Judge's order to look for "15 terms" almost makes it seem like the extent of the original search was tied to file name or document titles or something?
- moftz 10y ago
  They are probably very specific search terms that are repeated in the documents and might be unique enough to show up in any documents created by someone plagiarizing the Waymo docs. The fact that 31,000 other documents also contain these phrases but are "not substantive" makes it seem like the search terms are somewhat generic but definitely appear in the Waymo docs. Uber might have ruled out all of those other docs by just looking at the dates the docs were last modified. If they are older than when Levandowski or any of the other people previously employed by Waymo joined Uber, then they can probably be vetted as original IP.
dfar1 10y ago
1 file is too many files.
fowlerpower 10y ago
This story is fascinating for tech people everywhere and we should all pay attention. We all have big dreams of starting our own company some day (I know do) and many of us work for big corporations that would rather we never go anywhere and work for as little as possible. (admittedly the markets are forcing them to pay us a lot but they aren't doing it out of good will). The outcome of this will teach us all very valuable lessons. I can't be the only one who is a little paranoid that if I start my own shit I'll be sued or that I may even be sued for some of the side projects I'm working on even though I've never taken any code or resources from my company.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > The outcome of this will teach us all very valuable lessons. Lesson #1: Don't steal. > I can't be the only one who is a little paranoid that if I start my own shit I'll be sued or that I may even be sued for some of the side projects I'm working on even though I've never taken any code or resources from my company. Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth. Assuming their accusations aren't truthful, of course.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    > 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.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      > What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? Avoiding an injunction against your business.
      - MichaelBurge 10y ago
        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.
alacombe 10y ago
and the file was... stdio.h. Damn !
joshu 10y ago
I assume "14000 documents" is one repo checkout.
Animats 10y ago
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 all you do is come in and say, “We looked for the documents and can’t find them,” then the conclusion is they got a record that shows Mr. Levandowski took it, and maybe still has it. And he’s—he’s still working for your company. And maybe that means preliminary injunction time. Maybe. I don’t know. I’m not there yet. But I’m telling you, you’re looking at a serious problem." ... "Well, why did he take [them] then?". "He downloaded 14,000 files, he wiped clean the computer, and he took [them] with him. That's the record. He’s not denying it. You're not denying it. No one on your side is denying he has the 14,000 files. Maybe you will. But if it's going to be denied, how can he take the 5th Amendment? This is an extraordinary case. In 42 years, I've never seen a record this strong. You are up against it. And you are looking at a preliminary injunction, even if what you tell me is true." Uber is having a very bad day when a Federal judge starts talking like that. A preliminary injunction looks likely. If Uber can't find anything, this goes against them. Nobody has denied that Levandowski copied the files. Uber paid $600 million for Otto's technology and people. Even if the files didn't make it to Uber's computers, Waymo can probably get a preliminary injunction shutting down much of Uber's self-driving effort. Then Uber gets to argue that their technology is different from Waymo's. It's going to be hard to argue independent invention when all the people are from Google's project.
- akiselev 10y ago
  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 really strong record of making judgments that stand the test of appeals. I vote Alsup for Ginsberg's seat.
  - 10y ago
dmritard96 10y ago
Are there any opensource autonomous/driverless car projects with substantial momentum. This seems like something so foundational to the next 50 to 100 years that it needs to be 'owned' by everyone.
- munificent 10y ago
  > This seems like something so foundational to the next 50 to 100 years that it needs to be 'owned' by everyone. This is equally true of climate change and possibly sustainable energy. Unfortunately, our current political and corporate structures don't seem set up to handle it well.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  https://github.com/commaai/openpilot https://github.com/commaai/openpilot Not self driving, but ACC
- drawnwren 10y ago
  To be completely honest, it seems like this is going to be so tightly tied to hardware that it won't matter _that_ much.
siliconc0w 10y ago
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.
- tannhauser23 10y ago
  You come up with a discovery plan that both parties can agree with (or one that's imposed by the court). You figure out the scope of the search (which DBs, hard drives, phones, etc.), the search terms to run, etc. You do depositions of employees to figure out who and where else potentially relevant documents can be. Obviously you can't prove a negative, but you end up doing an exhaustive search.
jeffdavis 10y ago
Aren't you supposed to settle criminal cases before civil ones? Is the guy formally indicted? If they just did the criminal trial first, he couldn't claim 5th protections, right?
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  You can plead the 5th in a civil case in the US, but depending on the jurisdiction the jury and judge may be allowed to hold that against you (which they are not supposed to do in a criminal case). This is even more interesting because Levandowski is pleading the 5th, and Uber is asking for it to not be held against Uber.
- rhino369 10y ago
  DOJ doesn't always go after trade secret cases, especially if there is adequate civil remedies. But even when they do, they often let the civil plaintiff do the heavy lifting and then come in with a criminal charge using the information obtained by the plaintiff. Google probably can't wait until a long criminal trial happens. Civil discovery is easier than criminal investigations.
- kin 10y ago
  Nope, it's just between Waymo and Uber at the moment, and it's just a civil case at the moment. Levandowski however has criminal lawyers here because the judge's court order for documentation may bring up something that makes Levandowski a criminal, whatever it is.
golfer 10y ago
Interesting statement here from the judge and Uber's attorney (Gonzalez). Gonzalez worked for Alsup at some point in their careers. Judge Alsup: Look. I want you to know I respect both sides here. And everyone knows I know Mr. González from the days when he was a young associate and I was a partner, and he was working for me on cases. And he has gone on to be a much better lawyer than I ever was. But you shouldn't have asked for in camera on this. This could have all been done in the open. I'm sorry that Mr. Levandowski has got his -- got himself in a fix. That's what happens, I guess, when you download 14,000 documents and take them, if he did. But I don't hear anybody denying that. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784/Waymo-Uber-3-29-17.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784/Waymo-Ube...
woodandsteel 10y ago
As a former grokoholic, I must say all this heavy-duty legal drama makes me miss Groklaw and pj.
- HappyTypist 9y ago
  Thanks NSA!
woodandsteel 10y ago
It seems to me that even if Uber proves that Levandowski never downloaded the files to Otto, much less Uber, they still are in deep trouble unless they can prove that he never laundered the information in them through his brain to help Otto or Uber develop their technology.
08-15 10y ago
Why did Waymo sue Uber? They should have sued Levandowski---he copied (no, he didn't steal!) the files in question, after all.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  they claim (with very strong evidence) that uber is using waymo's designs.
- neom 10y ago
  They want to prevent uber from using the technology to develop autonomous vehicles, this will severely knee cap uber.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  They are suing Uber because they claim it is using the technology in their product. Since Uber bought Levandowski's company, it is morally equivalent to Uber having hired Levandowsky to spy on Google.
- pawadu 9y ago
  They claim Levandowski's company was just a front to steal Google IP and he never intended to take that company anywhere. Furthermore, they claim this was all orchestrated by Uber to create a legal firewall.
DannyBee 10y ago
A lot of people seem confused by the idea that a party can request personal documents someone else has. Just like in criminal land, civil land has subpoenas. Parties can issue subpoenas for most things to other parties. In federal court, civil subpoenas are covered by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 45. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 Outside of the exceptions listed, yes, you would be required to produce information you have.
- kelnos 10y ago
  I think also in this case it's a matter of Uber telling its employees, "hey, if you have any of this stuff on your personal laptops, you'd better give it to us" (with the perhaps-implicit "or we might fire you" on the end of it). Two of the employees are playing ball, but Levandowski has clammed up (and Uber, to the judge's amusement, is allowing him to do that without repercussions).
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Uber firing you may not be the worst of it. You can end up in jail for contempt until you comply: "The rule is also amended to clarify that contempt sanctions may be applied to a person who disobeys a subpoena-related order, as well as one who fails entirely to obey a subpoena. In civil litigation, it would be rare for a court to use contempt sanctions without first ordering compliance with a subpoena, and the order might not require all the compliance sought by the subpoena. Often contempt proceedings will be initiated by an order to show cause, and an order to comply or be held in contempt may modify the subpoena's command. Disobedience of such an order may be treated as contempt" Obviously, can't hold you in contempt (or at least, can't punish you) if you validly took the 5th, but ...
- DannyBee 9y ago
  (sorry, i also said "to other parties". You can subpoena non-parties as well, as the advisory committee comments explain)
- clubm8 9y ago
  Is there anything one can do to reduce the risk of a disovery fishing request on my personal devices? Or is simply working for a company being sued sufficient to be compelled to produce my personal devices? For example, if I stated that my personal phone does not contain any work accounts, and does not access the work network, instead relying on 4G? Or would I have to leave my smartphone at home? Or would not even that be sufficient? :/ This entire concept is deeply troubling to me.
dumbasswebsite 10y ago
How is Uber inspecting employees' personal devices?
matt4077 10y ago
This judge is mighty impressive, and since it's so much in fashion these days to be suspicious of institutions, I want to highlight this passage: THE COURT: If you all keep insisting on redacting so much information, like -- and you're the guilty one on that, Mr. Verhoeven -- then arbitration looks better and better. Because I'm not going to put up with it. If we're going to be in a public proceeding, 99 percent of what -- 90 percent, anyway, has got to be public. [..] THE COURT: The best thing -- if we were -- one of the factors that you ought to be considering is maybe you should -- if you want all this stuff to be so secret, you should be in arbitration. You shouldn't be trying to do this in court and constantly telling them not to, or you putting in -- the public has a right to see what we do. [..] And I feel that so strongly. I am not -- the U.S. District Court is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Quinn Emanuel or Morrison & Foerster or these two big companies. We belong to the public. And if this continues, then several things are going to happen. One, we're going to call a halt to the whole -- we're going to stop everything. And we're going to have document-by-document hearings in this room,
- life_on_mars 9y ago
  So from what I understand, Google is litigating this in public, but their lawyers, such as Mr. Verhoeven, are redacting everything on their side they don't want public. This makes it sound like Google is doing this in public mainly to hurt Uber as much as possible in the court of public opinion. Am I wrong in interpreting Google's actions this way? Sounds like this and many other conflicts Google had with Mr. Lewandowsky over the years should have been dealt with in arbitration. This just looks like Google acting out a vendetta against Mr. Lewandowsky. They tolerated his actions when he worked for them and even after he left to work for himself, but turned against him once he joined a competitor. While on paper, it doesn't appear that Mr. Lewandowsky is a saint, Google doesn't look good here either. Google's behavior here should give any engineer pause about considering Google as a place to work. California doesn't allow non-compete agreements, and this looks like Google attempting to achieve the effects of a non-compete through litigation. "If we can't hire and keep Mr. Lewandowsky, then we'll make sure our competitors can't either."
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
mannykannot 10y ago
It is like finding one cockroach in the kitchen.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
umanwizard 9y ago
I don't really get how the orders to search for documents on employee-owned devices are possibly enforceable. What stops employees with incriminating data from just throwing their devices in a river before they can be searched?
maverick_iceman 9y ago
The whole court transcript is well worth a read. Fortunately, no legalese.
clubm8 9y ago
I'm curious how Uber (a private company) got access to someone's personal laptop. If my employer demanded access to my personal machine I'd tell them to pound sand.
- Haydos585x2 9y ago
  Someone else in this thread links to sources but it looks like in civil cases things can be subponead in a similar way to the criminal system. Edit: Found it, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14046529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14046529
woodandsteel 9y ago
What Google really wants is to prove that Uber is using the technology in the product it is developing. So the question is how Google will go about trying to prove that, and what Uber would need to do to prove it is not.
- gtirloni 9y ago
  The case will proceed to expert witnesses in time. The 14,000 documents seem to be Uber's smallest problem in this case.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Yeah, I think it's quite likely that the patent charges, for which how Uber/Otto got to the designs is immaterial (except in terms of enhanced penalties for willfulness, which Levandowski's knowledge, with or without the documents, may be enough for), may be the real killer.
discodave 9y ago
I just realized how stark the prisoners dilemma here between Uber and Levandowski is. Based on what Alsup was saying today that if Uber can't produce counter-evidence by May 3rd, they are staring down the barrel of a preliminary injunction, they're damned if they fire him and damned if they don't. 1. Levandowski remains at Uber. Keeps asserting his fifth amendment rights, which means that Uber can't present evidence to thwart Googles theft claims. Judge files a preliminary injunction, sad trombone, no self-driving cars for Uber. 2. Uber fires Levandowski. Now, he has no reason to protect Uber, the incentives for him are to avoid criminal prosecution. He could even do a deal with Google or a prosecutor to cooperate in the civil case in exchange for avoiding criminal prosecution. Uber is then likely to lose the actual case, sad trombone, no self driving cars for Uber. As others have pointed out, the stakes for Uber are incredibly high, they missed the china train and if they can't catch the self-driving-car train, then their $50+ billion valuation is up in smoke. Man I wish I could be shorting Uber right now.
visarga 9y ago
> highly functional a judge Best joke I read today.
- nstj 9y ago
  Downvotes? Looks like there's some kind of scheme against this thread.
  - ExactoKnight 9y ago
    As hacker news becomes more popular it becomes more like reddit :(
    - lorenzhs 9y ago
      "If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a common semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - nstj 9y ago
        Hilarious - I'd never seen that before! Another interesting tidbit[0]: > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (Not all users see flag links; there's a small karma threshold.) [0]: Ibid.
      - DonHopkins 9y ago
        There is one exception: If your account is exactly one year old, and a little cake icon appears next to your name, then are you allowed to submit exactly one comment saying that HN is turning into Reddit.
  - some1else 9y ago
    I think the logic used to go "Don't comment if you don't have anything to add to the discussion". So people downvote comments that should have just been upvotes in the first place.
smallhands 9y ago
i have a very very bad feeling that one day in a distance future employer will be demand your sign over anything that come from your head over to them before they will offer you job.

512 points by folz 10y ago

'“To the extent Uber tries to excuse its noncompliance on the grounds that Mr. Levandowski has invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to provide Uber with documents or assistance, Waymo notes that Mr. Levandowski remains — to this day — an Uber executive and in charge of its self-driving car program. Uber has ratified Mr. Levandowski’s behavior and is liable for it,” Waymo attorney Charles K. Verhoeven wrote in a letter to the court (emphasis his).' Ouch.

jerf 10y ago
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 and is actively committing crimes in discovery to prevent the discovery from working. Not only is it not an unbiased source, it's basically a source being paid to be biased. Which is fine; I am generally down with the philosophy of adversarial justice. But you shouldn't read much of anything at all into that quote. For those of us on the outside, while we are justified in considering that a possible hypothesis, we are also justified in looking at the facts and considering that it may indeed be the case that these documents were never given to Uber. I for one have no trouble believing that the documents were downloaded by an individual but that they were never given to Uber, as I rather suspect "keeping more than one really ought from one's previous job but never raising to the level of actually giving that stuff to one's next employer" is really quite common.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  >...it may indeed be the case that these documents were never given to Uber. Then they should have their legal team pilloried and set ablaze for advising them to be this cagey.
  - jerf 10y ago
    I'm not particularly committing to either hypothesis right now. If Uber is indeed screwing around with discovery I would imagine they're going to end up in very big trouble. I for one would pretty much consider that prima facie evidence every executive even remotely involved in that decision, including simply being aware of it, should be immediately fired by the shareholders and everything possible clawed back from them. I don't consider that out of the question, but it's a pretty serious accusation on its own. Uber's kinda big to get away with that sort of shenanigan.
    - nikanj 10y ago
      Then again, a large part of Uber's success has been built upon shenanigans. It seems likely that they might develop an arrogance towards the legal system, after years of playing chicken with it.
      - __jal 10y ago
        You can generally predict Uber's behavior by assuming it behaves like a stereotypical frat house. The behavior is: - Go for it and see if anyone complains - See if ignoring the complainers makes them go away - See if bullying the complainers makes them go away - Can it be solved with money? - Last resort: cheat. - If you get caught, call the lawyers; in public, whine about the raw deal you're getting.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        Unfortunately for them, the combination of Google alleging massive theft, the issues around Applebaum, and the high profile exit of some of their execs, none of that is likely to work.
        praneshp 10y ago
        Hey, what issues around Applebaum? Some googling didn't help me, the most prominent result is a journalist called Anne Applebaum.
- CalChris 10y ago
  > 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 computer.
  - maverick_iceman 10y ago
    How can they access an employee's personal computer?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      By asking.
      - rhino369 10y ago
        They don't even have to access it. They just have to ask for the documents.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      "You will provide us this, or you will be an ex-employee."
  - komali2 10y ago
    Until the facts of the case come out, don't fall into the dangerous dark hole of fully buying into either story. The other day I booted my old galaxy s3 to put a new ROM on it and turn it into a dashcam. I found on it that google drive had offline backed-up some documents from a company I had worked at several years ago, and no longer did. Should I be sued for trade secret theft?
    - CalChris 10y ago
      Uber admitted today
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  "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 amendment as that only binds the government. Google's lawyer is arguing that the court ought to treat that as constructive non-compliance. There's no implied allegation of perjury or other criminal behavior.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    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.
    - kmonsen 10y ago
      Also, if you already have virtually unlimited money loosing the job doesn't seem so bad.
      - bradleyjg 10y ago
        If this case goes very badly for Uber they may well decide to turn around and sue Levandowski. He may not have virtually unlimited money after that.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - vkou 10y ago
      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.
- ABCLAW 10y ago
  Judge Alsup's comments on pages 14 and 15 of the transcript mirror the statement you're attempting to discredit. Perhaps it is a bit more concerning when the argument is made by the trier-of-fact himself.
  - themgt 10y ago
    Yeah, reading through pages 14 -> 20 Uber sounds like they're in some shit. Essentially Levandowski wants to keep his criminal 5th amendment protections at the same time Uber is keeping him as head of the division and the judge thinks it already looks likely he stole 14,000 documents. Uber's almost trying to launder his criminal protections into their civil case while he's still running the department they accused him of stealing the IP for? IANAL but this does not sound good: Judge: "And if [Levandowski] 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."
    - bonzini 10y ago
      > launder his criminal protections into their civil case Which they just can't do right? Fifth amendment can be used against you in civil cases.
      - ABCLAW 10y ago
        Uber isn't claiming the fifth amendment. A senior executive of theirs is. Their argument is that his choices aren't theirs. Judge Alsup doesn't seem very sympathetic to that line of reasoning. He did not, however, decide upon that point at this stage, given that these matters were not properly in front of the court.
        bonzini 10y ago
        Not talking about claiming it, but about "laundering it" as the parent comment put it. And in fact as you say, it's being interpreted as making excuses more than respecting the choice of their executive.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  Seems to me that Alsup is saying he is trying to remain open to the possibility that Uber is not guilty, but that Uber's behavior so far is making it really hard to do that, and it better do something better real soon or he is might well exercise the nuclear option, namely shut down its self-driving program.
elastic_church 10y ago
Its actually really impressive that Uber is standing behind him at all. Nobodies get fired from their job from any old baseless accusation.
- Lazare 9y ago
  Uber has shown little adherence to principle but a great fondness for game theory. Game theory does not yield a lot of positive reasons why Uber would be backing Lewandowsky. > from any old baseless accusation The accusations may be false, but they are not baseless. They're so strong, in fact, that Uber is probably going to be hit with a preliminary injunction. Baseless accusations, by definition, would not have brought Uber to this stage.
  - elastic_church 9y ago
    Oh I see why my comment perturbed the collective conscious, but I wasn't making any statement on the merit of the accusation, just his continual employment and how impressive that is. I was saying that most people get fired for any accusation whether they have merit or not. This employee has an accusation that has substantial merit and is still employed. So thats actually broadcasting confidence amongst current and future employees regardless of what kind of thing gets slung their way.
    - Lazare 9y ago
      Your suggestion could be true, yes. In theory. But the obvious explanation (and the one Occam's Razor points us to) is quite different: That Uber would fire Lewandowsky if they thought they could benefit, but they believe standing behind him will minimize their legal liability and/or maximise their chances of benefitting from the purchase of Otto. A normal guy accused of something baseless doesn't have any pull on Uber and their top exec's; Lewandowsky might. In other words, your conclusion is that "if they're standing behind this guy when everything is pushing them to fire him, they'd NEVER fire a normal guy!" A better conclusion is probably "if they're standing behind this guy when everything is pushing them to fire him, there must be something really strong forcing them not to. A normal guy would still be screwed, because they don't have...whatever Lewandowsky has." I mean, obviously we don't know what Uber's top execs are thinking, or what really happened with Lewandowsky and Otto. But we know a bit about how Uber think in general, and we've seen some past decisions they've made. Do you really argue selfless altruism and employee loyalty is the most likely explanation here?
komali2 10y ago
Good, I'm happy he still works there. People should not be fired because of accusations. It opens the door for abuse of the justice system. Let's not fall into the trap of assuming Waymo is the "good guys" and Uber is the "bad guys." Leveling an accusation isn't hard. Anybody can sue anybody as long as you have enough evidence or a good enough argument to convince a judge to hear the case.
- tajen 10y ago
  I'm happy some people still think like you. The respect for trials was lost at one point in recent history (and I don't know whether the million-dollar coffee and counter-argument explains it [1]), but the theory of justice is that the judge determines what is fair. I'm especially disgusted that so many men lose their jobs upon women's accusations: Without a judge, I can't verify that said men were guilty or just that a woman leveraged the system. And this happens with many other types of suspicion. [1] https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ
  - joshuamorton 10y ago
    This argument doesn't follow. Your link explains why frivolous lawsuits are more of a myth than most people believe. You then proceed to lambaste people for people bowing to lawsuits which, your source contends, are probably more reasonable than you think.
    - tajen 9y ago
      I don't really understand what you point out, and I believe this is the misunderstanding: > You then proceed to lambast people for people bowing to lawsuits GitHub and other cases aren't lawsuits, that's my point: They're just people being fired without fair trial. It doesn't prove there was harassment/theft/conflict/etc. What I'm saying is we should apply the presumption of innocence and not demote people preemptively, but help the real justice system investigate whether accusations are true.
- chc 10y ago
  Leveling an accusation isn't hard, but making somebody plead the fifth in a civil case where they haven't done anything wrong is. When one of your executives is refusing to cooperate with an internal investigation because it might expose him to criminal liability, that's a little past "From my point of view, Waymo is evil."

YCode 10y ago

Offhand, this kind of sounds like a parent asking their teenager to go and search their own room for drugs. "Nah, I didn't find anything. I found this plastic bag that looks like it mighta had something in it, but I'm pretty sure my friend left it here and it was empty when he brought it." "Okay son, go search again."

huangc10 10y ago
I have to...completely agree with you on your analogy. You forgot to mention the part about the urine sample.
oh_sigh 10y ago
Also, there is no reason to believe that a bad actor would steal 14,000 documents from a previous company, and then on the first day on the job go and upload them to the company git server. If I knew I was being nefarious, I would keep those documents on a completely airgapped computer in a private (non-company) space, only reference them when I was alone, and then bring information into the company only through my brain(and probably, with a reasonable parallel reconstruction already determined).
- ergothus 10y ago
  I don't disagree with your assessment in general, the problem is that when you take the set of "criminals", and then further drill in to "criminals that actually get accused", you rapidly change the ratio of "clever" to "think-they-are-clever". I'm not saying all criminals are stupid [Edit: stupid, careless, ignorant, poor at prediction, poor at risk calculation, take your pick] ...just that many are. And the really clever ones are often able to do it without even getting accused. So you're left with a group that has a LOT of facepalm-inducing members. And sad to say, even filtering the list for people in high ranking positions doesn't help that much. Apparently "actually be a clever criminal" and "be a successful business person" don't overlap a lot. (I imagine "ABLE to be a clever criminal" has more overlap...but most decide not to.) Side story: When I was a young kid (8?) my mom sternly told me "I don't EVER want to hear of you...committing a crime you can't retire on". Oddly enough, that was far more valuable than just saying "don't commit a crime". It had a logic my young brain could understand more easily than base morals or even evaluating the odds of getting caught. It inured me to a fair amount of peer pressure until I was old enough to decide for myself (and kids have few opportunities to commit huge crimes). Each kid is different, of course, but I recommend this to all parents of young children.

dsschnau 10y ago

Uber is basically pleading the fifth. Hahahahaha

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

MegaButts 10y ago

I get the feeling 2017 is going to be a very entertaining (from a news perspective) year for tech.

seangrogg 10y ago
I've been kicking around the idea of Popcorn as a Service.
- MegaButts 10y ago
  I would like to invest in this idea. Food delivery is hot, and we need to disrupt the entertainment industry!
  - problems 10y ago
    You just write the app that matches popcorn providers with popcorn buyers in their area and charge a 2x markup - 5x during popcorn surges!
    - sophacles 10y ago
      Nah, the real money is being a MaaS provider. (Marketplace as a Service). Why try to strike gold when you can just get rich selling the gold-rushers some picks and shovels? It shouldn't be much more than an API and some customizable matching algorithms (e.g. proximity or pricepoint or keywords and maybe a scheduler or two). I'm only half-joking in that I wouldn't be surprised to find out this is a thing already.
      - imh 10y ago
        Nah, too niche. Why try to strike it rich selling picks and shovels to gold-rushers when you can get richer doing logistics for those pick-and-shovel merchants? MaaSaaS is where it's at.
    - fuckemem 9y ago
      That'll hurt the movie industry a lot more than file sharing. Expect some lobbying on both sides.

checkdigit15 10y ago

"Judge William Alsup, who is presiding over the case, ordered Uber to search more thoroughly for the documents." Judge Alsup always winds up with the most interesting cases :-)

sndean 10y ago
Ohh, didn't realize this is the same judge who taught himself Java (https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-schmidt-page-damages/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-schmidt-page-damages/)

jankassens 10y ago

How would Uber find files on some employees personal device?

codazoda 10y ago
It's a good question, since the article also says that the employee is refusing to cooperate on 5th amendment grounds (which is likely smart).
- sbov 10y ago
  It's a different employee. The article doesn't mention whether or not Kshirsagar has invoked the 5th amendment.
- shostack 10y ago
  I wonder how much of that is the point of this exercise--to make the employee look guilty as hell.

caroherm 10y ago

What is the background story for this article?

nyolfen 10y ago
https://danielcompton.net/2017/03/14/uber-bombshell https://danielcompton.net/2017/03/14/uber-bombshell

ABCLAW 10y ago

It is surprising that Google did not push the court to appoint a third party discovery firm to handle the device imaging process and to provide a report to the court. Maybe both parties' intense desire for privacy in this matter has driven Google to this strategy. The seeming ludicrousness of the result - Alsup's "go try again, harder this time" - is not caused by this case's parties playing badly. It is caused by poorly defined and understood laws surrounding what constitutes a defensible search. Data handling in this stage of legal proceedings is imperfect, and can be manipulated by both parties to drive up the cost of litigation, or to strategically avoid disclosing the key breadcrumb documentation that would otherwise have led to the smoking gun(s). Edit: Please find the court reporter transcript here: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-29-17.html#text/p3 http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-... Judge Alsup's comments are fairly aggressive in comparison to most commercial litigation, but the no-nonsense tone is par for the course.

wapz 9y ago
I'm really surprised at how the search is going too (by the article). "Go find these documents." "Didn't find them." "Okay go again." "Okay." Now if you're an employee that has any of those documents and you weren't searched the first time, there's no way you'll be caught with the documents by the time the second search starts.
- andreareina 9y ago
  My reading is that it's not the results being judged, but the process of the search. Given the high confidence that seems to be assigned to the claim that 14,000 documents were downloaded, "we asked our employees to give us what they have, and this is all we got" isn't good enough.
lowpro 9y ago
It's not so surprising given that if Uber doesn't find anything, Google would have a much better chance at the Prelim. Injunction. Hiring a 3rd party firm isn't needed since Google is ahead either way, and Uber doesn't need a third party firm to search its own system (or at least, hopefully they don't).

aresant 10y ago

This resolved to the Judge ordering a deeper search: "[The Judge] told Uber to search using 15 terms provided by Waymo, first on the employees’ computers that had already been searched, then on 10 employees’ computers selected by Waymo, and then on all other servers and devices connected to employees who work on Uber’s LiDAR system." Seems interesting that there's not a more comprehensive system or way to search for these since Google is clearly in possession of the specific documents they claim are stolen. The way they're continuing the Judge's order to look for "15 terms" almost makes it seem like the extent of the original search was tied to file name or document titles or something?

moftz 10y ago
They are probably very specific search terms that are repeated in the documents and might be unique enough to show up in any documents created by someone plagiarizing the Waymo docs. The fact that 31,000 other documents also contain these phrases but are "not substantive" makes it seem like the search terms are somewhat generic but definitely appear in the Waymo docs. Uber might have ruled out all of those other docs by just looking at the dates the docs were last modified. If they are older than when Levandowski or any of the other people previously employed by Waymo joined Uber, then they can probably be vetted as original IP.

dfar1 10y ago

1 file is too many files.

fowlerpower 10y ago

This story is fascinating for tech people everywhere and we should all pay attention. We all have big dreams of starting our own company some day (I know do) and many of us work for big corporations that would rather we never go anywhere and work for as little as possible. (admittedly the markets are forcing them to pay us a lot but they aren't doing it out of good will). The outcome of this will teach us all very valuable lessons. I can't be the only one who is a little paranoid that if I start my own shit I'll be sued or that I may even be sued for some of the side projects I'm working on even though I've never taken any code or resources from my company.

throwaway729 10y ago
> The outcome of this will teach us all very valuable lessons. Lesson #1: Don't steal. > I can't be the only one who is a little paranoid that if I start my own shit I'll be sued or that I may even be sued for some of the side projects I'm working on even though I've never taken any code or resources from my company. Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth. Assuming their accusations aren't truthful, of course.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  > 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.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? Avoiding an injunction against your business.
    - MichaelBurge 10y ago
      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.

alacombe 10y ago

and the file was... stdio.h. Damn !

joshu 10y ago

I assume "14000 documents" is one repo checkout.

Animats 10y ago

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 all you do is come in and say, “We looked for the documents and can’t find them,” then the conclusion is they got a record that shows Mr. Levandowski took it, and maybe still has it. And he’s—he’s still working for your company. And maybe that means preliminary injunction time. Maybe. I don’t know. I’m not there yet. But I’m telling you, you’re looking at a serious problem." ... "Well, why did he take [them] then?". "He downloaded 14,000 files, he wiped clean the computer, and he took [them] with him. That's the record. He’s not denying it. You're not denying it. No one on your side is denying he has the 14,000 files. Maybe you will. But if it's going to be denied, how can he take the 5th Amendment? This is an extraordinary case. In 42 years, I've never seen a record this strong. You are up against it. And you are looking at a preliminary injunction, even if what you tell me is true." Uber is having a very bad day when a Federal judge starts talking like that. A preliminary injunction looks likely. If Uber can't find anything, this goes against them. Nobody has denied that Levandowski copied the files. Uber paid $600 million for Otto's technology and people. Even if the files didn't make it to Uber's computers, Waymo can probably get a preliminary injunction shutting down much of Uber's self-driving effort. Then Uber gets to argue that their technology is different from Waymo's. It's going to be hard to argue independent invention when all the people are from Google's project.

akiselev 10y ago
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 really strong record of making judgments that stand the test of appeals. I vote Alsup for Ginsberg's seat.
- 10y ago

dmritard96 10y ago

Are there any opensource autonomous/driverless car projects with substantial momentum. This seems like something so foundational to the next 50 to 100 years that it needs to be 'owned' by everyone.

munificent 10y ago
> This seems like something so foundational to the next 50 to 100 years that it needs to be 'owned' by everyone. This is equally true of climate change and possibly sustainable energy. Unfortunately, our current political and corporate structures don't seem set up to handle it well.
throwaway729 10y ago
https://github.com/commaai/openpilot https://github.com/commaai/openpilot Not self driving, but ACC
drawnwren 10y ago
To be completely honest, it seems like this is going to be so tightly tied to hardware that it won't matter _that_ much.

siliconc0w 10y ago

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.

tannhauser23 10y ago
You come up with a discovery plan that both parties can agree with (or one that's imposed by the court). You figure out the scope of the search (which DBs, hard drives, phones, etc.), the search terms to run, etc. You do depositions of employees to figure out who and where else potentially relevant documents can be. Obviously you can't prove a negative, but you end up doing an exhaustive search.

jeffdavis 10y ago

Aren't you supposed to settle criminal cases before civil ones? Is the guy formally indicted? If they just did the criminal trial first, he couldn't claim 5th protections, right?

johncolanduoni 10y ago
You can plead the 5th in a civil case in the US, but depending on the jurisdiction the jury and judge may be allowed to hold that against you (which they are not supposed to do in a criminal case). This is even more interesting because Levandowski is pleading the 5th, and Uber is asking for it to not be held against Uber.
rhino369 10y ago
DOJ doesn't always go after trade secret cases, especially if there is adequate civil remedies. But even when they do, they often let the civil plaintiff do the heavy lifting and then come in with a criminal charge using the information obtained by the plaintiff. Google probably can't wait until a long criminal trial happens. Civil discovery is easier than criminal investigations.
kin 10y ago
Nope, it's just between Waymo and Uber at the moment, and it's just a civil case at the moment. Levandowski however has criminal lawyers here because the judge's court order for documentation may bring up something that makes Levandowski a criminal, whatever it is.

golfer 10y ago

Interesting statement here from the judge and Uber's attorney (Gonzalez). Gonzalez worked for Alsup at some point in their careers. Judge Alsup: Look. I want you to know I respect both sides here. And everyone knows I know Mr. González from the days when he was a young associate and I was a partner, and he was working for me on cases. And he has gone on to be a much better lawyer than I ever was. But you shouldn't have asked for in camera on this. This could have all been done in the open. I'm sorry that Mr. Levandowski has got his -- got himself in a fix. That's what happens, I guess, when you download 14,000 documents and take them, if he did. But I don't hear anybody denying that. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784/Waymo-Uber-3-29-17.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784/Waymo-Ube...

woodandsteel 10y ago

As a former grokoholic, I must say all this heavy-duty legal drama makes me miss Groklaw and pj.

HappyTypist 9y ago
Thanks NSA!

woodandsteel 10y ago

It seems to me that even if Uber proves that Levandowski never downloaded the files to Otto, much less Uber, they still are in deep trouble unless they can prove that he never laundered the information in them through his brain to help Otto or Uber develop their technology.

08-15 10y ago

Why did Waymo sue Uber? They should have sued Levandowski---he copied (no, he didn't steal!) the files in question, after all.

throwaway2048 10y ago
they claim (with very strong evidence) that uber is using waymo's designs.
neom 10y ago
They want to prevent uber from using the technology to develop autonomous vehicles, this will severely knee cap uber.
woodandsteel 9y ago
They are suing Uber because they claim it is using the technology in their product. Since Uber bought Levandowski's company, it is morally equivalent to Uber having hired Levandowsky to spy on Google.
pawadu 9y ago
They claim Levandowski's company was just a front to steal Google IP and he never intended to take that company anywhere. Furthermore, they claim this was all orchestrated by Uber to create a legal firewall.

DannyBee 10y ago

A lot of people seem confused by the idea that a party can request personal documents someone else has. Just like in criminal land, civil land has subpoenas. Parties can issue subpoenas for most things to other parties. In federal court, civil subpoenas are covered by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 45. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 Outside of the exceptions listed, yes, you would be required to produce information you have.

kelnos 10y ago
I think also in this case it's a matter of Uber telling its employees, "hey, if you have any of this stuff on your personal laptops, you'd better give it to us" (with the perhaps-implicit "or we might fire you" on the end of it). Two of the employees are playing ball, but Levandowski has clammed up (and Uber, to the judge's amusement, is allowing him to do that without repercussions).
- DannyBee 9y ago
  Uber firing you may not be the worst of it. You can end up in jail for contempt until you comply: "The rule is also amended to clarify that contempt sanctions may be applied to a person who disobeys a subpoena-related order, as well as one who fails entirely to obey a subpoena. In civil litigation, it would be rare for a court to use contempt sanctions without first ordering compliance with a subpoena, and the order might not require all the compliance sought by the subpoena. Often contempt proceedings will be initiated by an order to show cause, and an order to comply or be held in contempt may modify the subpoena's command. Disobedience of such an order may be treated as contempt" Obviously, can't hold you in contempt (or at least, can't punish you) if you validly took the 5th, but ...
DannyBee 9y ago
(sorry, i also said "to other parties". You can subpoena non-parties as well, as the advisory committee comments explain)
clubm8 9y ago
Is there anything one can do to reduce the risk of a disovery fishing request on my personal devices? Or is simply working for a company being sued sufficient to be compelled to produce my personal devices? For example, if I stated that my personal phone does not contain any work accounts, and does not access the work network, instead relying on 4G? Or would I have to leave my smartphone at home? Or would not even that be sufficient? :/ This entire concept is deeply troubling to me.

dumbasswebsite 10y ago

How is Uber inspecting employees' personal devices?

matt4077 10y ago

This judge is mighty impressive, and since it's so much in fashion these days to be suspicious of institutions, I want to highlight this passage: THE COURT: If you all keep insisting on redacting so much information, like -- and you're the guilty one on that, Mr. Verhoeven -- then arbitration looks better and better. Because I'm not going to put up with it. If we're going to be in a public proceeding, 99 percent of what -- 90 percent, anyway, has got to be public. [..] THE COURT: The best thing -- if we were -- one of the factors that you ought to be considering is maybe you should -- if you want all this stuff to be so secret, you should be in arbitration. You shouldn't be trying to do this in court and constantly telling them not to, or you putting in -- the public has a right to see what we do. [..] And I feel that so strongly. I am not -- the U.S. District Court is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Quinn Emanuel or Morrison & Foerster or these two big companies. We belong to the public. And if this continues, then several things are going to happen. One, we're going to call a halt to the whole -- we're going to stop everything. And we're going to have document-by-document hearings in this room,

life_on_mars 9y ago
So from what I understand, Google is litigating this in public, but their lawyers, such as Mr. Verhoeven, are redacting everything on their side they don't want public. This makes it sound like Google is doing this in public mainly to hurt Uber as much as possible in the court of public opinion. Am I wrong in interpreting Google's actions this way? Sounds like this and many other conflicts Google had with Mr. Lewandowsky over the years should have been dealt with in arbitration. This just looks like Google acting out a vendetta against Mr. Lewandowsky. They tolerated his actions when he worked for them and even after he left to work for himself, but turned against him once he joined a competitor. While on paper, it doesn't appear that Mr. Lewandowsky is a saint, Google doesn't look good here either. Google's behavior here should give any engineer pause about considering Google as a place to work. California doesn't allow non-compete agreements, and this looks like Google attempting to achieve the effects of a non-compete through litigation. "If we can't hire and keep Mr. Lewandowsky, then we'll make sure our competitors can't either."
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago

mannykannot 10y ago

It is like finding one cockroach in the kitchen.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

umanwizard 9y ago

I don't really get how the orders to search for documents on employee-owned devices are possibly enforceable. What stops employees with incriminating data from just throwing their devices in a river before they can be searched?

maverick_iceman 9y ago

The whole court transcript is well worth a read. Fortunately, no legalese.

clubm8 9y ago

I'm curious how Uber (a private company) got access to someone's personal laptop. If my employer demanded access to my personal machine I'd tell them to pound sand.

Haydos585x2 9y ago
Someone else in this thread links to sources but it looks like in civil cases things can be subponead in a similar way to the criminal system. Edit: Found it, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14046529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14046529

woodandsteel 9y ago

What Google really wants is to prove that Uber is using the technology in the product it is developing. So the question is how Google will go about trying to prove that, and what Uber would need to do to prove it is not.

gtirloni 9y ago
The case will proceed to expert witnesses in time. The 14,000 documents seem to be Uber's smallest problem in this case.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Yeah, I think it's quite likely that the patent charges, for which how Uber/Otto got to the designs is immaterial (except in terms of enhanced penalties for willfulness, which Levandowski's knowledge, with or without the documents, may be enough for), may be the real killer.

discodave 9y ago

I just realized how stark the prisoners dilemma here between Uber and Levandowski is. Based on what Alsup was saying today that if Uber can't produce counter-evidence by May 3rd, they are staring down the barrel of a preliminary injunction, they're damned if they fire him and damned if they don't. 1. Levandowski remains at Uber. Keeps asserting his fifth amendment rights, which means that Uber can't present evidence to thwart Googles theft claims. Judge files a preliminary injunction, sad trombone, no self-driving cars for Uber. 2. Uber fires Levandowski. Now, he has no reason to protect Uber, the incentives for him are to avoid criminal prosecution. He could even do a deal with Google or a prosecutor to cooperate in the civil case in exchange for avoiding criminal prosecution. Uber is then likely to lose the actual case, sad trombone, no self driving cars for Uber. As others have pointed out, the stakes for Uber are incredibly high, they missed the china train and if they can't catch the self-driving-car train, then their $50+ billion valuation is up in smoke. Man I wish I could be shorting Uber right now.

visarga 9y ago

> highly functional a judge Best joke I read today.

nstj 9y ago
Downvotes? Looks like there's some kind of scheme against this thread.
- ExactoKnight 9y ago
  As hacker news becomes more popular it becomes more like reddit :(
  - lorenzhs 9y ago
    "If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a common semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - nstj 9y ago
      Hilarious - I'd never seen that before! Another interesting tidbit[0]: > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (Not all users see flag links; there's a small karma threshold.) [0]: Ibid.
    - DonHopkins 9y ago
      There is one exception: If your account is exactly one year old, and a little cake icon appears next to your name, then are you allowed to submit exactly one comment saying that HN is turning into Reddit.
- some1else 9y ago
  I think the logic used to go "Don't comment if you don't have anything to add to the discussion". So people downvote comments that should have just been upvotes in the first place.

smallhands 9y ago

i have a very very bad feeling that one day in a distance future employer will be demand your sign over anything that come from your head over to them before they will offer you job.