15 ms·
Uber’s Anthony Levandowski out as Advanced Technologies lead amid legal fight
- jacquesm 9y agoThat's just Uber trying avoid having their self-driving car department shut-down. But it could definitely still happen. Maybe Uber should apply to Google's 'PatentShield' program ;)
- ChuckMcM 9y agoThat would be hilarious (the Patentshield application). It is also rare to have one of these disputes happening with such wide visibility. And reading the coverage so far it sounds like Levandowski chose to interpret the meaning of his employment agreement with Google much more charitably than Google does (which is somewhat expected on Google's part). I went back and looked at mine from 2006 (which was the year earlier version so they could have been fairly similar) and its pretty clear about what steps you need to take to clear your "side projects" with Google. The most obvious being you have to ask permission. Challenging times indeed.
- sriram_sun 9y agoConsider Google's investment in Uber! "The $258 million is an 86 percent chunk of Google Ventures’ $300 million dollar a year fund, and it’s unclear whether the firm will continue to make such sizable investments." - https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-into-uber-its-largest-deal-ever/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-ventures-puts-258m-...
- jacquesm 9y agoUber could really play that to their advantage: "Your Honor, Google is just trying to soften us up because they don't get their way in the boardroom..." Having two roles in a lawsuit is a very dangerous thing, no matter how much their ex employee is at fault here they could easily make a lot of smoke out of that.
- notatoad 9y agoHow does that actually play out? Google Ventures and Google's self-driving car were both "Google" when that investment was made, but now Waymo and GV are ostensibly separate entities. Is Alphabet suing Uber, or is Waymo suing Uber?
- linkregister 9y agoWaymo is a wholly-owned subsidiary; there's not going to be much distinction here. Not that I agree with the parent poster: the equity ownership is unlikely to be relevant to the case. People have successfully sued their own corporations and other bizarre legal actions.
- zaphar 9y agoIt's all the more interesting because Google makes it ridiculously easy to ask for that permission and get a legally unambiguous go or no go for any side projects. It's not like this would have been murky waters.
- jacquesm 9y agoAnd it's also fairly clear that this would have been a 'no'.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 9y agothere was a joke posting on an internal alias that showed the internal /etc/aliases file for Google which had the mailing list going to '|/usr/bin/no'[1] :) I would be interested to know if anyone still there had ever tried that and gotten a yes answer. The three times I used the process it was always denied. [1] To understand the meta-joke there is actually a /usr/bin/yes program but in the standard distribution there isn't a /usr/bin/no :-)
- TeMPOraL 9y agoCalling /usr/bin/yes no will yield you a working "no" program :).
- jacquesm 9y agoI'm disappointed that symlinking to 'no' still produces 'y' when called. Oh well, that'll have to be an alias then. Also, /usr/bin/yes will echo anything you give it.
- bobsil1 9y agoAh, the Indian head wobble.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
- arkitaip 9y agoMaybe Uber has realized that this guy is toxic and can't be trusted handling "their" tech? If he spent a decade stealing Google's tech, are they willing to risk him treating Uber the same way? Especially since Uber's epic level of sliminess would make it even easier for Levandowski to rationalize theft.
- atomical 9y agoMaybe Google should hire him back.
- jacquesm 9y agoWhy on earth would they ever do that? Why would anybody hire him? He may be good but he's also damaged goods with a serious trust issue attached to his name. Hire me and you'll get sued by the largest tech companies on the planet is not a really good opener for a job interview.
- themoonbus 9y agoThat would be the end of uber... not immediately, but it would seal their fate.
- kaladaraos 9y agoIs there any reason not to be suspicious that Levandowski will just work on them unofficially?
- awalton 9y agoProbably not going to matter either way - Google's got them dead to rights, will likely win a complete injunction against the program...
- CalChris 9y agoThat and Uber pissed off the wrong people by stealing Levandowski after Google had bought his company. And that after Google had invested in Uber.
- sriram_sun 9y agoNo Levandowski pissed off the wrong people by stealing core technology from Google. Stealing employees is OK. Technology is not. It is the law.
- CalChris 9y agoYes, that is what I meant. The stealing of trade secrets (illegal) was on top of the stealing of employees (legal) which was on top of the investment (speculation). But add it all up and Google is going to make an example out of Uber.
- user5994461 9y agoAnd it's twice as impactful because it's happening simultaneously with other disastrous events and sexual harassment lawsuits. News love big names with big drama.
- kyrra 9y agohttps://techcrunch.com/2017/03/29/waymo-pursued-arbitration-with-anthony-levandowski-before-it-sued-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/29/waymo-pursued-arbitration-...
- glangdale 9y agoCan this conceivably make a difference at this late stage? Genuinely curious. Surely if a judge accepts the theory that Levandowski helped Uber's program along with stolen IP, having him 'no longer working on the program' at this stage would have to look like window dressing. Doesn't it just make them look worse, like they are admitting that there's a problem?
- jacquesm 9y agoIt just might tip the balance to not having the program shut down, which is what the injunction is asking for. So by not waiting until a verdict but to pre-emptively remove him they hope that enough of this sticks to Levandowski that does not directly stick to Uber that they will be allowed to continue the program. It's a hail Mary pass at best.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Can this conceivably make a difference at this late stage? If they are working on alternative technology not under legal cloud in case thet lose the Waymo battle in a way which doesn't block all future work, yes, having Levandowski's hands off of it makes a huge difference. It probably makes no difference in the Waymo fight, though.
- _rpd 9y agoA damages award could be large enough to change the economics of Uber's project.
- encoderer 9y agoWorth remembering that Google paid this guy over $120 Million in compensation. He is a tech "1%"er, which really is saying a lot. That is hedge fund money. I'm not certain, but I think the average engineer would feel more loyalty to a company that has given them multi-generational wealth. I'm all for engineers getting paid, but in this case the guy didn't even have to do what most wealthy engineers do: deliver an actual successful product to market.
- tsurantino 9y agoI think his exceptionalism can be accounted for based on the lawsuit.
- WillyOnWheels 9y ago> I'm all for engineers getting paid, but in this case the guy didn't even have to do what most wealthy engineers do: deliver an actual successful product to market. Anthony's efforts led to Streetview and Maps improvements. Waymo is still using his LIDAR research. I think Anthony is totally screwed with this lawsuit, but I wouldn't belittle his engineering accomplishments.
- encoderer 9y agoOh, I'm not. But I don't think the other Maps engineers took home $100 Million. Google clearly thought it was in their best interest, but I stand by what I said: As an engineer, the most well beaten path to wealth is building something that sells. To get paid and not even have to do that is itself something of an accomplishment, though not one I'd be very proud of.
- linkregister 9y agoAccording to The Verge article on Levandowski, that is why he left GoogleX/Waymo: they wouldn't ship. And he was too outspoken to be in charge of Google X self-driving.
- jstandard 9y agoJust curious, do you have an inside scoop on what value he's brought to Google and other companies? In these types of situations where a lot of money is involved, I've noticed folks are pretty quick to vilify someone with little information aside from the heavily biased info that leaks into the news. While $120MM in a vacuum does sound ridiculous, it's hard to know (or even put a price on) his true value without understanding his contributions in depth. This criticism doesn't extend to you, but in general I've seen a lot of the same folks make snap judgements about someone's ability based on what they've read from news and then vehemently decry how job interviews (which yield far more information) aren't effective at judging someone's worth.
- DrNuke 9y agoGenuinely curious about the malicious behaviour at the root of this legal battle: if the case, was it worth it from the beginning? I mean, is there a lesson for the millions outsiders out of the SV microsystem reading this? In many different environments, you lose your job, credit and reputation for much less than this and for a fraction of the potential money involved.
- sverige 9y agoThe rules are different for the handful of people operating at this level, same as high level politicians who get away with things that would put you or me in federal prison for decades.
- sanguy 9y agoAnthony is overrated and a complete psychopath. He doesn't understand it's basic right from wrong. In his mind IP is boundless and his, not Googles. This comes from 5 years of working in fairly close contact. Zero morals. He is what's wrong with Silicon Valley - on equal grounds to Travis from Uber. I can completely see this all being planned for years just like circumventing the iPhone App Store rules. As a Google shareholder I demand they litigate until Uber and Anthony are where they deserve to be; jail.
- DaiPlusPlus 9y agoIf I may ask, what was your working relationship with him?
- virtuabhi 9y agoBut he must be good. $120M+ in compensation.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoYep. That's Juicero level money.
- ganoushoreilly 9y agoI'm stealing this as my new expensive / large sum replacement
- toomuchtodo 9y agoMake sure to emphasize at the same time with making motions with your hands like you're squeezing a bag of juice.
- inetknght 9y ago> is what's wrong with Silicon Valley this.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zachruss92 9y agoAnother day, another scandal.
- Zilroy 9y agoFunny how actvities creating most unemployment attract most money.
- jxi 9y agoIsn't that completely logical. If you build something that makes it so that you don't need 20 people making 50k/yr doing it anymore, you're saving 1m/yr which is very lucrative for anyone.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kainolophobia 9y agoA lot of people are blaming Levandwoski for deceiving Google as though he were some sort of evil mastermind. Given the lack of care he's taken to hide from these inevitable accusations, one must question the intelligence of his actions. Instead, I think there might be a more simple explanation. Levandowski is clearly a brilliant character. Is it possible that he's not trying to maximize monetary gain but is instead optimizing for power over the technology? I sense that he's good with technical implementation but possibly terrible at technical leadership/the politics necessary for seeing one's vision through in a larger organization. If viewed in this light, it seems that Levandowski has constantly been frustrated by the direction (or lack thereof) within the organizations he's been a part of. Rather than starting side companies and jumping ship for profit, he's really just trying to maintain control over whatever vision he has for lidar-enabled self-driving technology. Now this strategy for power breaks down a bit, because he keeps selecting the local maxima in terms of opportunity. When Google comes calling, he accepts. When Uber comes calling, he accepts. Constantly convinced that the next place will give him the power/respect he thinks he deserves. In the end, rather than building up IP from scratch and making a good name for himself, he's stolen a bunch of work from other engineers while potentially building a patent-infringing product. (thoughts x-posted from the other thread)
- kainolophobia 9y agoEdit: Just to clarify, I don't agree with anything Levandwoski has done and both he and Uber should face repercussions for their actions. With that said, there's a lot of "conspiracy"-esque hype around this guy that I think may be undeserved. Everyone here seems to be focused on his monetary motivations for acting as he did; I'm simply trying to offer an alternative viewpoint that could explain the situation outside of pure financial gain.
- throwaway90125 9y agoThere is also a supposed conversation between him and Larry Page before he left. From what I've read, Larry supposedly knew a lot about the circumstances of his leaving, and what transpired in that meeting supposedly will undermine Waymo's position. He's being deposed, but apparently Uber is only allowed to ask him one question, which is odd. Edit: downvoted as expected. I bet that 9 out of 10 people upvoting these stories and downvoting every comment that is in the least supportive of Uber or critical of Google are bitter Google employees.
- sgift 9y agoI must be number 10 then. No connection to Google, just don't think hearsay is helpful/interesting.
- throwaway90125 9y agoUber has requested that Larry Page be deposed and they have questions they want to ask him under oath. That's fact, not hearsay. They clearly have questions the truth of which will weaken Waymo's position. Lawyers don't ask questions they don't already know the answer to. The only unknown is if Larry will lie under oath or be able to skillfully answer in a way that doesn't hurt Waymo's position.
- Gigablah 9y agoOr Larry simply tells the truth and doesn't hurt Waymo's position. The bias is dripping off your lips.
- throwaway90125 9y agoAgain, lawyers don't ask questions that they don't already know the answer to. They wouldn't ask to depose him if they didn't think the answers would help their position. This is lawyering 101 level obviousness.
- deleted 9y ago
- dkarapetyan 9y agoSo all this drama is kinda pointless. I mentioned in another thread that SV culture actively encourages this kind of behavior and ultimately I think folks buy into the system because everyone deep down thinks they're gonna become a millionaire this way. I'm only watching because of morbid curiosity and really I have no stake in the outcome whatever it may be. Both companies are equally bad in my opinion and they are making things more and more unsustainable. The modern technology ecosystem feels very unhealthy in general.
- macspoofing 9y ago>I mentioned in another thread that SV culture actively encourages That's not true at all. I know the "Pirate" idea is mythologized and tied to the development of the Mac, but even then, Apple actually had a deal with Xerox. >Both companies are equally bad in my opinion and they are making things more and more unsustainable. I wouldn't say that. I would say it's a typical dispute. We have courts to settle these kinds of disputes. >The modern technology ecosystem feels very unhealthy in general. I wouldn't go that far. Given the pace of change, it's actually pretty solid.
- nebabyte 9y ago> folks buy into the system because everyone deep down thinks they're gonna become a millionaire this way Such a perfect summary of why many of the flawed practices of our day persist.
- cowardlydragon 9y agoGoogle has Uber dead to rights. Uber needed self driving to have any hope of profitability, but that's an impossibility when Google owns them in court. Then their money train dries up, and Uber goes under.