6 ms·

I don't find this to be the same. What you did could be defended easily by saying it was an accident and you behavior would have been nonmalicious. You didn't p

by vuln 10y ago

I don't find this to be the same. What you did could be defended easily by saying it was an accident and you behavior would have been nonmalicious. You didn't purposely back up some old files, start a new company with the same exact tech from those said files then sell the new company 2 months later for a cool 680mill. If you did that then yes your old employ would definitely have a case against you. If your story is as described they company would lose.

johnmaguire2013 10y ago
Except this wasn't found on Levandowski's machine (the guy who sold Octo.)
- HaloZero 10y ago
  This was found on another person's laptop who helped found Otto though.
  - life_on_mars2 10y ago
    If enough engineers leave company A and join company B and all are working in the same field, I would expect at least some of those employees to have documents from their previous employer, even if only accidentally. The fact that they've only found one document and only on the personal laptop of a single employee seems to suggest that they actually did a good job in due diligence. Does anyone know how many former Waymo engineers now work at Uber?
    - komali2 10y ago
      Why's this guy being downvoted? In an era of "but her emails" are we really surprised that an employee's phone could have hundreds of for example corporate emails leftover, if not other documents depending on what tech they use.
komali2 10y ago
All of the first part of the things you said is a part of the accusation. >Waymo says he took 14,000 documents, while Kshirsagar and Radu Raduta took only a few. Waymo is now asking for Uber to turn over those stolen documents as part of the discovery process My understanding is that part of the case is deciding if it is true that 14,000 documents were taken. So again, the only known truth is that a single document was found on a guy's device. What I am concerned with is that we all fall into the "Uber BAD, Waymo GOOD" trap simply because Waymo is kicking up a big shitstorm. Let the process of law happen, let the facts of the case arise, before we pass judgement.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > My understanding is that part of the case is deciding if it is true that 14,000 documents were taken. It is, but that's a much later part of the case. The present part of the case is complying with discovery orders and considering preliminary injunctions, which does weigh what the parties are claiming and able to offer to support those claims, but does not involvethe kind of formal, detailed presentation and weighing of evidence that will happen at trial.
- matt4077 10y ago
  The taking of 14,000 documents is actually assumed to be true currently for the purposes of this case. That's because Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. Of course, the documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. Simply saying "I didn't do that" would be insufficient.
  - komali2 10y ago
    > Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. >documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. pretty apparently Come on man, you know what angle I'll go for here. Why are you letting that slip? The documentation aka evidence hasn't been seen yet because this case hasn't gone to court. None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light. I'm happy to hop on the "Uber is evil" train after the case, but it is painful to watch the normally quite rational people on HN fall for such a typical fallacy of justice.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
You have your facts mixed up. The person who was found with a single document was not the defendant, it was someone else from Google. And we don't know what that file was. Was it downloaded years ago? Was it a README file? Was it an XLS file that he worked on a couple of years ago that he was writing? We don't have any information yet.

by vuln 10y ago

johnmaguire2013 10y ago

Except this wasn't found on Levandowski's machine (the guy who sold Octo.)

HaloZero 10y ago
This was found on another person's laptop who helped found Otto though.
- life_on_mars2 10y ago
  If enough engineers leave company A and join company B and all are working in the same field, I would expect at least some of those employees to have documents from their previous employer, even if only accidentally. The fact that they've only found one document and only on the personal laptop of a single employee seems to suggest that they actually did a good job in due diligence. Does anyone know how many former Waymo engineers now work at Uber?
  - komali2 10y ago
    Why's this guy being downvoted? In an era of "but her emails" are we really surprised that an employee's phone could have hundreds of for example corporate emails leftover, if not other documents depending on what tech they use.

komali2 10y ago

All of the first part of the things you said is a part of the accusation. >Waymo says he took 14,000 documents, while Kshirsagar and Radu Raduta took only a few. Waymo is now asking for Uber to turn over those stolen documents as part of the discovery process My understanding is that part of the case is deciding if it is true that 14,000 documents were taken. So again, the only known truth is that a single document was found on a guy's device. What I am concerned with is that we all fall into the "Uber BAD, Waymo GOOD" trap simply because Waymo is kicking up a big shitstorm. Let the process of law happen, let the facts of the case arise, before we pass judgement.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> My understanding is that part of the case is deciding if it is true that 14,000 documents were taken. It is, but that's a much later part of the case. The present part of the case is complying with discovery orders and considering preliminary injunctions, which does weigh what the parties are claiming and able to offer to support those claims, but does not involvethe kind of formal, detailed presentation and weighing of evidence that will happen at trial.
matt4077 10y ago
The taking of 14,000 documents is actually assumed to be true currently for the purposes of this case. That's because Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. Of course, the documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. Simply saying "I didn't do that" would be insufficient.
- komali2 10y ago
  > Uber is in no position to deny it, only Lewandowsky could. And he can't deny it, because then he could no longer invoke his right to remain silent. So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me. >documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. pretty apparently Come on man, you know what angle I'll go for here. Why are you letting that slip? The documentation aka evidence hasn't been seen yet because this case hasn't gone to court. None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light. I'm happy to hop on the "Uber is evil" train after the case, but it is painful to watch the normally quite rational people on HN fall for such a typical fallacy of justice.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

You have your facts mixed up. The person who was found with a single document was not the defendant, it was someone else from Google. And we don't know what that file was. Was it downloaded years ago? Was it a README file? Was it an XLS file that he worked on a couple of years ago that he was writing? We don't have any information yet.