6 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      > I think I see: You were comparing the GP to someone in Kalanick's position, not to Levandowski. I am considering GP's situation directly -- leaving a company to create a start up and then being sued. If he didn't steal, he should say so to save his business. If he doesn't say so, he risks his business. That's the downside. Of course, if he did steal, he should shut up and lesson #2 explicitly doesn't apply. The present situation is different -- Levandowski's fate probably isn't tied to Uber's and certainly vice versa. > I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts I stand by the "don't steal" lesson :-)
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? You open yourself up to perjury charges as well as the charges you were trying to protect against with the Fifth, plus you open yourself to unlimited cross-examination and impeachment of your testimony. Oh, wait, you said benefit.
dllthomas 10y ago
Your Lesson #2 is wrong. If someone accuses you of theft listen to your lawyer, whether you are innocent or guilty.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  And if your lawyer tells you to plead the fifth and clam up, don't be surprised when your business receives an injunction. I'm not a lawyer, but Alsup is, and he states as much in an abundantly clear tongue lashing of Uber's lawyers: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-29-17.html#text/p3 http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-... Sorry, but I don't buy it. Of course you should talk to lawyers first, just as Levandowski did. But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself. In a perfect world, being actually innocent would mean zero risk of conviction of a crime with a vigorous and dedicated defense, no matter what the prosecution did. We don't live in a perfect world, and it is, in fact, quite possible for a situation to exist where you are actually innocent and on-balance have better expected results by invoking the Fifth. Even accepting potential negative consequences that may have outside of the criminal realm.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      I agree in principle and understand your point. But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client. At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.
      - 10y ago
evilsnoopi3 10y ago
> Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth. Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer. Then listen to them. Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt however it is portrayed in the media - often times it is necessary even for innocent parties to invoke. I am not a lawyer and this shouldn't be construed as legal advice.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer Which is exactly what Levandowski did. And then, under advice from his lawyer, he plead the fifth. > Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt In criminal cases. In civil cases, you can still plead the fifth without facing contempt. But the jury is free to draw its own conclusions. As is the judge. If you don't believe me, see the transcription of Alsup's tounge lashing.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > In civil cases, the jury is free to draw its own conclusions Actually, in the US, whether or not the jury is free to draw negative inferences from invoking the fifth varies by which jurisdictions law controls (the feds have one set of rules, states each have their own, and their are rules for when state and federal issues are in play in the same case.) And, in any case, there is a difference from a negative inferences drawn from your failure as a result of your agent's invocation of the Fifth (e.g., Uber based on Levandowski's actions) and a negative inference against you for your invocation of the Fifth.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I.e., the fifth itself doesn't protect you from negative inference in civil cases, but some jurisdictions provide that protection? In any case, I stand by my lesson: avoid actions that lead to situations where these distinctions matter.

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.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > I think I see: You were comparing the GP to someone in Kalanick's position, not to Levandowski. I am considering GP's situation directly -- leaving a company to create a start up and then being sued. If he didn't steal, he should say so to save his business. If he doesn't say so, he risks his business. That's the downside. Of course, if he did steal, he should shut up and lesson #2 explicitly doesn't apply. The present situation is different -- Levandowski's fate probably isn't tied to Uber's and certainly vice versa. > I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts I stand by the "don't steal" lesson :-)
dragonwriter 10y ago
> What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? You open yourself up to perjury charges as well as the charges you were trying to protect against with the Fifth, plus you open yourself to unlimited cross-examination and impeachment of your testimony. Oh, wait, you said benefit.

dllthomas 10y ago

Your Lesson #2 is wrong. If someone accuses you of theft listen to your lawyer, whether you are innocent or guilty.

throwaway729 10y ago
And if your lawyer tells you to plead the fifth and clam up, don't be surprised when your business receives an injunction. I'm not a lawyer, but Alsup is, and he states as much in an abundantly clear tongue lashing of Uber's lawyers: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-29-17.html#text/p3 http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-... Sorry, but I don't buy it. Of course you should talk to lawyers first, just as Levandowski did. But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself. In a perfect world, being actually innocent would mean zero risk of conviction of a crime with a vigorous and dedicated defense, no matter what the prosecution did. We don't live in a perfect world, and it is, in fact, quite possible for a situation to exist where you are actually innocent and on-balance have better expected results by invoking the Fifth. Even accepting potential negative consequences that may have outside of the criminal realm.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    I agree in principle and understand your point. But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client. At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.
    - 10y ago

evilsnoopi3 10y ago

> Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth. Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer. Then listen to them. Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt however it is portrayed in the media - often times it is necessary even for innocent parties to invoke. I am not a lawyer and this shouldn't be construed as legal advice.

throwaway729 10y ago
> Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer Which is exactly what Levandowski did. And then, under advice from his lawyer, he plead the fifth. > Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt In criminal cases. In civil cases, you can still plead the fifth without facing contempt. But the jury is free to draw its own conclusions. As is the judge. If you don't believe me, see the transcription of Alsup's tounge lashing.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > In civil cases, the jury is free to draw its own conclusions Actually, in the US, whether or not the jury is free to draw negative inferences from invoking the fifth varies by which jurisdictions law controls (the feds have one set of rules, states each have their own, and their are rules for when state and federal issues are in play in the same case.) And, in any case, there is a difference from a negative inferences drawn from your failure as a result of your agent's invocation of the Fifth (e.g., Uber based on Levandowski's actions) and a negative inference against you for your invocation of the Fifth.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I.e., the fifth itself doesn't protect you from negative inference in civil cases, but some jurisdictions provide that protection? In any case, I stand by my lesson: avoid actions that lead to situations where these distinctions matter.