6 ms·

Is there any reason not to be suspicious that Levandowski will just work on them unofficially?

awalton 9y ago
Probably not going to matter either way - Google's got them dead to rights, will likely win a complete injunction against the program...
- CalChris 9y ago
  That 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 ago
    No 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 ago
      Yes, 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 ago
        And 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 ago
      https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/29/waymo-pursued-arbitration-with-anthony-levandowski-before-it-sued-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/29/waymo-pursued-arbitration-...
    - smichel17 9y ago
      Not all legal things are right. Not all illegal things are wrong. To be clear, I am not saying Lewandowski's actions are right; I'm saying your argument does not sufficiently justify its wrongness.
dsr_ 9y ago
There's no reason to believe that Levandowski is an irreplaceable engineer, is there?
- jgalt212 9y ago
  Yes, but he seems to be in irreplaceable social engineer.
- nols 9y ago
  He's one of the top experts in self driving technology, a motorcycle he and a team built in college is in the Smithsonian. I can see Uber wanting to keep him on unofficially.
  - taneq 9y ago
    "He and a team" - I'd be curious to see the extent of his technical contribution, given that he's billed as the team leader and seems to be taking a lot of the credit here. In my experience, 'team leaders' who end up with the credit for the finished product do so because they spent all their time self-promoting rather than actually, y'know, building the product.
    - uep 9y ago
      While I've personally seen examples of the team leader getting credit for being a self-promoter, I'm not convinced. I've also seen groups where the team leader was the most passionate, and really was the driving force for the project. I do not know which he is, but I'm not in a position to pass judgement.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Presumption of innocence. You have to assume that the people are innocent until they are proven guilty. If you fired Levandowski and win the case, then he sues. If you leave him in place and you're found guilty, there are extra damages because you were "notified" and you still didn't stop his work. So you move him off to the side, wait for the trial to resolve. And then figure out what to do with him, which will be either fire him or move him back on to the project.
- geofft 9y ago
  Isn't this a civil case, i.e., nobody is charging either Levandowski or Uber with a crime? And isn't Uber a) not a court of law, and therefore not obligated to presume innocence, and b) an at-will employer, who can terminate Levandowski merely for making life hard for them, whether or not he was responsible?
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    Yes it is a civil case, and it is a valid point about the lack of a criminal complaint. My explanation is inadequate. The burden of proof in a theft of trade secrets argument is on the plaintiff[1,2]. Google needs to prove Levandowski stole trade secrets, it does not require Uber to prove that he didn't. I am also presuming that Uber has an employment contract with Levandowski which includes earn outs as part of the Otto acquisition. This is common practice. And if my presumption is correct, he is not an 'at will' employee, there are specific guidelines around termination and the responsibilities of each party should they decide to separate. It is entirely possible that if they were to ask him to leave, and he had yet to be proven to have stolen secrets or misreprented his ownership of the IP he brought, Uber could conceivably owe him the balance of all earn outs immediately. [1] "Illinois law applied to the case and Illinois has passed the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. This Uniform Act is the law in 46 of the 50 states. To prevail on a trade secrets claim under the Act, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) it has information qualifying as a trade secret; (2) at least one of its trade secrets has been misappropriated; and (3) the defendant used that trade secret in their business activity or inevitably will." -- http://www.btlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Publications/A%20Daley-K%20Bader-Commercial%20Lit%20Update%20July%202011.pdf http://www.btlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Publications/A%... [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=4.&part=1.&title=5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x....
snappy173 9y ago
he'll work for them _officially_. >Levandowski will remain at Uber, despite his role change
- kaladaraos 9y ago
  That's precisely what I meant. He's supposedly working in a completely unrelated position; what's to stop him from helping out on LIDAR stuff?
  - snappy173 9y ago
    i heard he'll be working on a new self-driving car initiative called RADIL. not LIDAR at all.
TheCondor 9y ago
It's worse than that, a lot. Let's just assume that uber has some google technology. If they completely fire levandowsky, then he effectively becomes a third party in the case. Given the choice, google doesn't care about him, they care about uber beating them to market with their own tech. Google could drop him from the case in exchange for aiding in an uber loss. uber has to keep him close and happy, whatever that means... Now if Uber really hasn't done anything wrong, and they may not actually know, but if we assume they are completely innocent then he can't directly hurt them if they fire him, he might sue them or collect a golden parachute but it makes uber look better.
prostoalex 9y ago
This is analysis from The Information, which is a pay-only publication: "But Mr. Levandowski is still at Uber, reporting to his replacement, Eric Meyhofer. One person who knows both men said Mr. Meyhofer was considered to be Mr. Levandowski’s “shill.” So color us unimpressed by the move, which could just be smoke and mirrors."

Probably not going to matter either way - Google's got them dead to rights, will likely win a complete injunction against the program...

CalChris 9y ago
That 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 ago
  No 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
      And 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 ago
    https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/29/waymo-pursued-arbitration-with-anthony-levandowski-before-it-sued-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/29/waymo-pursued-arbitration-...
  - smichel17 9y ago
    Not all legal things are right. Not all illegal things are wrong. To be clear, I am not saying Lewandowski's actions are right; I'm saying your argument does not sufficiently justify its wrongness.

dsr_ 9y ago

There's no reason to believe that Levandowski is an irreplaceable engineer, is there?

jgalt212 9y ago
Yes, but he seems to be in irreplaceable social engineer.
nols 9y ago
He's one of the top experts in self driving technology, a motorcycle he and a team built in college is in the Smithsonian. I can see Uber wanting to keep him on unofficially.
- taneq 9y ago
  "He and a team" - I'd be curious to see the extent of his technical contribution, given that he's billed as the team leader and seems to be taking a lot of the credit here. In my experience, 'team leaders' who end up with the credit for the finished product do so because they spent all their time self-promoting rather than actually, y'know, building the product.
  - uep 9y ago
    While I've personally seen examples of the team leader getting credit for being a self-promoter, I'm not convinced. I've also seen groups where the team leader was the most passionate, and really was the driving force for the project. I do not know which he is, but I'm not in a position to pass judgement.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

Presumption of innocence. You have to assume that the people are innocent until they are proven guilty. If you fired Levandowski and win the case, then he sues. If you leave him in place and you're found guilty, there are extra damages because you were "notified" and you still didn't stop his work. So you move him off to the side, wait for the trial to resolve. And then figure out what to do with him, which will be either fire him or move him back on to the project.

geofft 9y ago
Isn't this a civil case, i.e., nobody is charging either Levandowski or Uber with a crime? And isn't Uber a) not a court of law, and therefore not obligated to presume innocence, and b) an at-will employer, who can terminate Levandowski merely for making life hard for them, whether or not he was responsible?
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  Yes it is a civil case, and it is a valid point about the lack of a criminal complaint. My explanation is inadequate. The burden of proof in a theft of trade secrets argument is on the plaintiff[1,2]. Google needs to prove Levandowski stole trade secrets, it does not require Uber to prove that he didn't. I am also presuming that Uber has an employment contract with Levandowski which includes earn outs as part of the Otto acquisition. This is common practice. And if my presumption is correct, he is not an 'at will' employee, there are specific guidelines around termination and the responsibilities of each party should they decide to separate. It is entirely possible that if they were to ask him to leave, and he had yet to be proven to have stolen secrets or misreprented his ownership of the IP he brought, Uber could conceivably owe him the balance of all earn outs immediately. [1] "Illinois law applied to the case and Illinois has passed the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. This Uniform Act is the law in 46 of the 50 states. To prevail on a trade secrets claim under the Act, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) it has information qualifying as a trade secret; (2) at least one of its trade secrets has been misappropriated; and (3) the defendant used that trade secret in their business activity or inevitably will." -- http://www.btlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Publications/A%20Daley-K%20Bader-Commercial%20Lit%20Update%20July%202011.pdf http://www.btlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Publications/A%... [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=4.&part=1.&title=5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x....

snappy173 9y ago

he'll work for them _officially_. >Levandowski will remain at Uber, despite his role change

kaladaraos 9y ago
That's precisely what I meant. He's supposedly working in a completely unrelated position; what's to stop him from helping out on LIDAR stuff?
- snappy173 9y ago
  i heard he'll be working on a new self-driving car initiative called RADIL. not LIDAR at all.

TheCondor 9y ago

It's worse than that, a lot. Let's just assume that uber has some google technology. If they completely fire levandowsky, then he effectively becomes a third party in the case. Given the choice, google doesn't care about him, they care about uber beating them to market with their own tech. Google could drop him from the case in exchange for aiding in an uber loss. uber has to keep him close and happy, whatever that means... Now if Uber really hasn't done anything wrong, and they may not actually know, but if we assume they are completely innocent then he can't directly hurt them if they fire him, he might sue them or collect a golden parachute but it makes uber look better.

prostoalex 9y ago

This is analysis from The Information, which is a pay-only publication: "But Mr. Levandowski is still at Uber, reporting to his replacement, Eric Meyhofer. One person who knows both men said Mr. Meyhofer was considered to be Mr. Levandowski’s “shill.” So color us unimpressed by the move, which could just be smoke and mirrors."