4 ms·

I'm kind of stunned at the amount of side-hustling that Levandowski seems to have been doing while at Google. How could the Google not have been aware of it, an

I'm kind of stunned at the amount of side-hustling that Levandowski seems to have been doing while at Google. How could the Google not have been aware of it, and how could it let it continue for so long? If I were more conspiracy-minded, I'd think they let Otto happen in order to feed a poison pill to Uber... In reality, I think they were just complacent, but still :\

tdb7893 10y ago
I'm not sure if that's plausible or if I've just watched too much Silicon Valley
joering2 10y ago
Wait - aren't they supposedly promoting the idea of 20% of work time to be spent of your outside of work projects?? Or that's just bullshit PR propaganda, like "don't be evil" slogan, meanwhile taking money and being basically setup up by CIA's In-Q-Tel?
- tdb7893 10y ago
  I don't think that your outside of work project is supposed to take proprietary knowledge to create a competitor, that seems like a pretty reasonable limit.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  They promote the use of 20% time to do projects that will be owned by Google. It's essentially giving you freedom to work on what you want, with the understanding that Google will reap the economic rewards (if any) from what you do. Google's not very tolerant of moonlighting. If you want to work on stuff and own it, quit.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > Google's not very tolerant of moonlighting. If you want to work on stuff and own it, quit. That goes for quite a few employers, especially if what you are doing is (1) competing with their products and (2) potentially successful or (3) both.
    - djsumdog 10y ago
      It's written into most peoples' contracts (in a way that isn't always obvious) but if you spend time at home working on stuff that's unrelated and then leave and found a company, if your employer tries to convince a judge they own your "on your own time, unrelated work," good luck with them not looking like shitheads.
      - defen 10y ago
        > time at home working on stuff that's unrelated Name something remotely related to the use of computers that is not related to things Google does. Note that it doesn't have to be anything you personally worked on at Google (or whatever tech BigCo™) - just something related to their business.
      - zaphar 10y ago
        Google's employment onboarding makes this bit unambiguous. You are told from the outset that if you have any current side projects you need to declare them when hired. Google will then tell you whether you can continue them and still work there. You are also told that if you wish to start any side projects while at Google the online form to tell Google of your intentions is at such and such a link. After you submit said form Google will either tell you that you risk legal consequences if you go ahead with said side project while still employed. Or that you are given explicit permission to go forward. Google doesn't make this at all ambiguous or even difficult to get clear legal guidance on side projects. Levandowski has no excuses here.
        nostrademons 10y ago
        It was actually significantly more ambiguous when I worked there (2009-2014), and presumably was even moreso in 2007. IARC didn't even exist until I think 2013, and it wasn't an online form at the time I left - you emailed some contact person, they discussed it in a relatively opaque committee, and then got back to you after an inordinate length of time. They had the standard California IP contract at the time, i.e. company claims ownership over all IP except that done on your own time, using your own resources, on subjects unrelated to the company's lines of business. That last clause was the source of all sorts of ambiguities, eg. Googlers who had written iPhone games were told (after the fact) that their work was owned by Google because Google+ might be getting into the games business. This was somewhat legally questionable on Google's part, and it was cases like this, probably combined with a few outright corporate theft cases like Lewandowski's, that led to the IARC process.
- knorker 10y ago
  Put down your pitchfork, buddy. of course 20% time is owned by Google. Otherwise it would simply be a 32h work week. Gmail isn't owned by the people who made it in their 20% time. Obviously.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  20% time is to work on side projects at Google. You aren't allowed to found other companies.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Wait - aren't they supposedly promoting the idea of 20% of work time to be spent of your outside of work projects?? No, 20% time is, in principle, self-directed inside-of-work projects. Mostly, I see it as a community center for building in slack (which is desirable for a lot of reasons) in formal projects while getting a bunch of in-house speculative development which can be mined for commercializable work.
tzs 10y ago
> I'm kind of stunned at the amount of side-hustling that Levandowski seems to have been doing while at Google. Well, Uber is running TV ads urging people to "get your side hustle on" [1], so at least he ended up at the right place. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKqnkoCfQGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKqnkoCfQGU
ansy 10y ago
> If I were more conspiracy-minded, I'd think they let Otto happen in order to feed a poison pill to Uber... That would be a very bad strategy if true so I highly doubt it. IANAL, but I believe under estoppel Google's knowledge of Levandowski's activity and implicit permission to continue would forfeit Google's right to sue later. Likely as soon as they came to know about it they took immediate action to prevent him from taking this defense.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

tdb7893 10y ago

I'm not sure if that's plausible or if I've just watched too much Silicon Valley

joering2 10y ago

Wait - aren't they supposedly promoting the idea of 20% of work time to be spent of your outside of work projects?? Or that's just bullshit PR propaganda, like "don't be evil" slogan, meanwhile taking money and being basically setup up by CIA's In-Q-Tel?

tdb7893 10y ago
I don't think that your outside of work project is supposed to take proprietary knowledge to create a competitor, that seems like a pretty reasonable limit.
nostrademons 10y ago
They promote the use of 20% time to do projects that will be owned by Google. It's essentially giving you freedom to work on what you want, with the understanding that Google will reap the economic rewards (if any) from what you do. Google's not very tolerant of moonlighting. If you want to work on stuff and own it, quit.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Google's not very tolerant of moonlighting. If you want to work on stuff and own it, quit. That goes for quite a few employers, especially if what you are doing is (1) competing with their products and (2) potentially successful or (3) both.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    It's written into most peoples' contracts (in a way that isn't always obvious) but if you spend time at home working on stuff that's unrelated and then leave and found a company, if your employer tries to convince a judge they own your "on your own time, unrelated work," good luck with them not looking like shitheads.
    - defen 10y ago
      > time at home working on stuff that's unrelated Name something remotely related to the use of computers that is not related to things Google does. Note that it doesn't have to be anything you personally worked on at Google (or whatever tech BigCo™) - just something related to their business.
    - zaphar 10y ago
      Google's employment onboarding makes this bit unambiguous. You are told from the outset that if you have any current side projects you need to declare them when hired. Google will then tell you whether you can continue them and still work there. You are also told that if you wish to start any side projects while at Google the online form to tell Google of your intentions is at such and such a link. After you submit said form Google will either tell you that you risk legal consequences if you go ahead with said side project while still employed. Or that you are given explicit permission to go forward. Google doesn't make this at all ambiguous or even difficult to get clear legal guidance on side projects. Levandowski has no excuses here.
      - nostrademons 10y ago
        It was actually significantly more ambiguous when I worked there (2009-2014), and presumably was even moreso in 2007. IARC didn't even exist until I think 2013, and it wasn't an online form at the time I left - you emailed some contact person, they discussed it in a relatively opaque committee, and then got back to you after an inordinate length of time. They had the standard California IP contract at the time, i.e. company claims ownership over all IP except that done on your own time, using your own resources, on subjects unrelated to the company's lines of business. That last clause was the source of all sorts of ambiguities, eg. Googlers who had written iPhone games were told (after the fact) that their work was owned by Google because Google+ might be getting into the games business. This was somewhat legally questionable on Google's part, and it was cases like this, probably combined with a few outright corporate theft cases like Lewandowski's, that led to the IARC process.
knorker 10y ago
Put down your pitchfork, buddy. of course 20% time is owned by Google. Otherwise it would simply be a 32h work week. Gmail isn't owned by the people who made it in their 20% time. Obviously.
CydeWeys 10y ago
20% time is to work on side projects at Google. You aren't allowed to found other companies.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Wait - aren't they supposedly promoting the idea of 20% of work time to be spent of your outside of work projects?? No, 20% time is, in principle, self-directed inside-of-work projects. Mostly, I see it as a community center for building in slack (which is desirable for a lot of reasons) in formal projects while getting a bunch of in-house speculative development which can be mined for commercializable work.

tzs 10y ago

> I'm kind of stunned at the amount of side-hustling that Levandowski seems to have been doing while at Google. Well, Uber is running TV ads urging people to "get your side hustle on" [1], so at least he ended up at the right place. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKqnkoCfQGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKqnkoCfQGU

ansy 10y ago

> If I were more conspiracy-minded, I'd think they let Otto happen in order to feed a poison pill to Uber... That would be a very bad strategy if true so I highly doubt it. IANAL, but I believe under estoppel Google's knowledge of Levandowski's activity and implicit permission to continue would forfeit Google's right to sue later. Likely as soon as they came to know about it they took immediate action to prevent him from taking this defense.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]