5 ms·
Sounds like he is. The guy still runs the part of Uber's company that is under question here. They could fire him, but they have not. They want their cake - not
by manyoso 10y ago
Sounds like he is. The guy still runs the part of Uber's company that is under question here. They could fire him, but they have not. They want their cake - not being penalized for his adverse inference - while eating it too - letting him run the part of the company that is in question. And they have not denied that he took the files in question. With no one disputing it Google's claim stands and that alone, with or without adverse inference, might be enough for the prelim injunction.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoOr at least for Google to say, in effect, "fire the guy, or we'll get a preliminary injunction".
- dx034 10y agoWhich says a lot about the company. In most industries, stealing from your former employer would get you fired immediately. Especially if it draws the company itself in a lawsuit. Usually the first action is to suspend the employee and cut all access to demonstrate that you don't support the behaviour. The way Uber acts looks a lot like they want to profit from the stolen files.
- candiodari 10y ago> stealing from your former employer would get you fired immediately Since that would pretty much be an admission of guilt, you leave out an important detail here. This will only happen if your new employer both believes you did it, and that they will lose the case and get an unacceptable penalty imposed on them as a result. If they intend to defend themselves, the behavior would be reversed : Legal would strongly object to your firing (or quitting) until the case is over, including all appeals and the terms for any further appeals are over and done with.