> “Anthony Levandowski is not a defendant in this case. Nor is this an employment dispute between Waymo and Mr. Levandowski,” reads the opposition. “Uber is the

> “Anthony Levandowski is not a defendant in this case. Nor is this an employment dispute between Waymo and Mr. Levandowski,” reads the opposition. “Uber is the defendant in this case, and Uber is responsible for its own misconduct.” Wait, so... They're implying that Levandowski didn't violate his agreement, but that Uber is liable for using trade secrets...? Unless those files were marked as theirs (which you'd think Levandowski would have scrubbed if he made them part of Otto's docs), I can't see how that'd be a winning strategy for them. hmm Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the case and am not a lawyer