6 ms·

> 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 d

> 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.
- CPLX 9y ago
  > Why would Uber allow discovery That's... not how discovery works...
lj3 9y ago
> Uber's wrong in they completely and miserably failed due dilligence Being stupid and/or incompetent isn't illegal. Yet.
- dragandj 9y ago
  It is if you happen to buy stolen property. You might not be held responsible for stealing, but you'll have to return the property and say good buy to the money, I think.
  - balls187 9y ago
    If the thieves are caught, they owe you the purchase price as restitution. This is only if you unknowingly purchased stolen goods.
    - dragandj 9y ago
      IANAL, but... They owe you and it is a question if they can get it back to you, but the rightful owner has precedence in many (most?) cases. That's the setup for many kinds of scam. The scammed party buys something, but the transaction of the property is in some way faulty, while the money quickly disappears.
    - geofft 9y ago
      The law is also going to ask hard questions about "unknowingly". If you're walking around Market St. at 11 PM and some dude stops you and tries to sell you a fancy new bike for $200, complete with a U-lock holder but no U-lock, the law is probably going to say that you should have expected it to be stolen property. If you gave the guy $200 in cash without asking any questions, you probably won't get away saying "I unknowingly purchased stolen goods".
- goatherders 9y ago
  I can't imagine the jackass that runs Uber ever admitting to being either of those things.
- geofft 9y ago

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.
CPLX 9y ago
> Why would Uber allow discovery That's... not how discovery works...

lj3 9y ago

> Uber's wrong in they completely and miserably failed due dilligence Being stupid and/or incompetent isn't illegal. Yet.

dragandj 9y ago
It is if you happen to buy stolen property. You might not be held responsible for stealing, but you'll have to return the property and say good buy to the money, I think.
- balls187 9y ago
  If the thieves are caught, they owe you the purchase price as restitution. This is only if you unknowingly purchased stolen goods.
  - dragandj 9y ago
    IANAL, but... They owe you and it is a question if they can get it back to you, but the rightful owner has precedence in many (most?) cases. That's the setup for many kinds of scam. The scammed party buys something, but the transaction of the property is in some way faulty, while the money quickly disappears.
  - geofft 9y ago
    The law is also going to ask hard questions about "unknowingly". If you're walking around Market St. at 11 PM and some dude stops you and tries to sell you a fancy new bike for $200, complete with a U-lock holder but no U-lock, the law is probably going to say that you should have expected it to be stolen property. If you gave the guy $200 in cash without asking any questions, you probably won't get away saying "I unknowingly purchased stolen goods".
goatherders 9y ago
I can't imagine the jackass that runs Uber ever admitting to being either of those things.
geofft 9y ago