7 ms·

"Here's the thing," [Judge William Alsup] said. "You didn't sue him. You sued Uber. So what if it turns out that Uber is totally innocent?" This is going to be

by crench 9y ago

"Here's the thing," [Judge William Alsup] said. "You didn't sue him. You sued Uber. So what if it turns out that Uber is totally innocent?" This is going to be a very interesting case.

jtraffic 9y ago
I served jury duty, and the reverse happened. The plaintiffs sued a social worker, but the case revolved around things the Department of Human Services (where he worked) advised him to do, as well as things other members of the organization did independently of him. In that case, I found it easier to decide when the question was "is this one guy responsible for everything that happened?" rather than the more complicated "is DHS as a whole responsible?"
- crench 9y ago
  Thanks for that perspective. I feel like we're constantly looking through the lens of "Uber is doing something shady", so projecting a large scandal onto the company is very easy. The inverse of that being that it could be quite easy for someone, Levandowski in this case, to orchestrate something for himself illegally.
appetizer 9y ago
Sounds like a rookie mistake. I always make sure cases are filed against everyone involved, the organizations involved, misspellings of those people and organizations, aliases, etc. I've had county clerks delay proceedings against one defendant simply because the CLERK mispelled the name in the docket. Nope. Let the court remove people from proceedings. Even in a summary judgement I'm not going to collect from uninvolved defendants (although yes many people are not so prudent)
FireBeyond 9y ago
Well, the answer to that, as the Judge knows, in America, for better or worse: "Tough shit for Uber. Shrug."
awalton 9y ago
> So what if it turns out that Uber is totally innocent? I honestly can't see this as an outcome; either Uber's wrong in they completely and miserably failed due dilligence, or they're wrong in that they actively coerced [him] to create a shell company with Google assets so it could "launder" them into Uber. We can't say for certain which it is at this point. All we know is that Uber's trying their level best not to say which by refusing discovery and worming around the issue. That alone signals to me that the preponderance of evidence bar is going to be a fairly easy one for Google to clear here. There's just too many dots that even when left unconnected draw a pretty clear picture of what happened.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Why would Uber allow discovery if they think they are already going to win? There is nothing wrong with Uber talking to Levandowsky while he was at Google, and nothing wrong for him to do it as long as he didn't violate his NDA. If Uber said, "hey, we really want to build a strong team for self driving, you should leave Google and come here", that's totally fine as well. It's even fine if they say "start a separate company and recruit a team, and we'll either invest or buy it". Google has a high bar here. They have to show their assets were "laundered" into Uber. And they have to show that Uber knew it and encouraged it. In the first case they'd only have a case against Levandowsky and a very limited one against Uber. It's only in the second where Uber's liability becomes substantial.
  - stupidhn 9y ago
    So what happens if Uber is "innocent" and Levandowski is guitly as an individual? Seems odd that they could benefit from him stealing the tech, even if they didn't know.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      They can't, they'd have to surrender the tech and may face some consequences. But far less than if they knew and orchestrated the theft.
  - 9y ago

by crench 9y ago

"Here's the thing," [Judge William Alsup] said. "You didn't sue him. You sued Uber. So what if it turns out that Uber is totally innocent?" This is going to be a very interesting case.

jtraffic 9y ago

I served jury duty, and the reverse happened. The plaintiffs sued a social worker, but the case revolved around things the Department of Human Services (where he worked) advised him to do, as well as things other members of the organization did independently of him. In that case, I found it easier to decide when the question was "is this one guy responsible for everything that happened?" rather than the more complicated "is DHS as a whole responsible?"

crench 9y ago
Thanks for that perspective. I feel like we're constantly looking through the lens of "Uber is doing something shady", so projecting a large scandal onto the company is very easy. The inverse of that being that it could be quite easy for someone, Levandowski in this case, to orchestrate something for himself illegally.

appetizer 9y ago

Sounds like a rookie mistake. I always make sure cases are filed against everyone involved, the organizations involved, misspellings of those people and organizations, aliases, etc. I've had county clerks delay proceedings against one defendant simply because the CLERK mispelled the name in the docket. Nope. Let the court remove people from proceedings. Even in a summary judgement I'm not going to collect from uninvolved defendants (although yes many people are not so prudent)

FireBeyond 9y ago

Well, the answer to that, as the Judge knows, in America, for better or worse: "Tough shit for Uber. Shrug."

awalton 9y ago

> So what if it turns out that Uber is totally innocent? I honestly can't see this as an outcome; either Uber's wrong in they completely and miserably failed due dilligence, or they're wrong in that they actively coerced [him] to create a shell company with Google assets so it could "launder" them into Uber. We can't say for certain which it is at this point. All we know is that Uber's trying their level best not to say which by refusing discovery and worming around the issue. That alone signals to me that the preponderance of evidence bar is going to be a fairly easy one for Google to clear here. There's just too many dots that even when left unconnected draw a pretty clear picture of what happened.

valuearb 9y ago
Why would Uber allow discovery if they think they are already going to win? There is nothing wrong with Uber talking to Levandowsky while he was at Google, and nothing wrong for him to do it as long as he didn't violate his NDA. If Uber said, "hey, we really want to build a strong team for self driving, you should leave Google and come here", that's totally fine as well. It's even fine if they say "start a separate company and recruit a team, and we'll either invest or buy it". Google has a high bar here. They have to show their assets were "laundered" into Uber. And they have to show that Uber knew it and encouraged it. In the first case they'd only have a case against Levandowsky and a very limited one against Uber. It's only in the second where Uber's liability becomes substantial.
- stupidhn 9y ago
  So what happens if Uber is "innocent" and Levandowski is guitly as an individual? Seems odd that they could benefit from him stealing the tech, even if they didn't know.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    They can't, they'd have to surrender the tech and may face some consequences. But far less than if they knew and orchestrated the theft.
- 9y ago