5 ms·
Buried at the end of the article: > Update: Judge Alsup has also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney for a possible criminal investigation. (https://techcr
by eridius 10y ago
Buried at the end of the article:
> Update: Judge Alsup has also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney for a possible criminal investigation.
(https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/11/waymos-claims-of-trade-secret-theft-could-result-in-criminal-case/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/11/waymos-claims-of-trade-sec...)
- greydata 10y agoI think this one hurts more: A new entry on the docket for the case notes that Waymo’s motion for a preliminary injunction has been partially granted and partially denied, but it’s not clear yet which of Waymo’s requests the judge will honor.
- nullnilvoid 10y agoToo bad Kalanick left Trump Advisory Council already. He could have used his influence on U.S. Attorney.
- nappy 10y agoI hope this is meant with sarcasm
- nullnilvoid 10y agoUnlike you and I, many people don't speak sarcasm.
- anigbrowl 10y agoJudge Alsup is one of the sharpest minds on the bench. That's going to cause a lot of sleepless nights.
- whatgoodisaroad 10y agoAlso from that article: ...as Uber has argued that it can’t release documents related to its acquisition of Otto without violating its employee’s 5th Amendment rights. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but that's not at all how I thought the 5th Amendment works.
- intrasight 10y agoLooks that way to me too, according to my reading of this flowchart http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 There was no "question" asked. Unless the government said "Would you pretty please perhaps give us those documents?" which I'm assuming they didn't.
- abledon 10y agoThis Comic is awesome! I will refer to this site whenever I read articles about Court Cases now.
- Animats 10y agoYou're missing the context: Judge Alsup: "Even though he is not a defendant here, moreover, Levandowski’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege has obstructed and continues to obstruct both discovery and defendants’ ability to construct a complete narrative as to the fate of Waymo’s purloined files. As a practical matter, it is hard to imagine how consolidating proceedings as to Levandowski and defendants, whether here or in arbitration, could alleviate these difficulties." The judge raises this to show that Levandowski's interests and Uber's interests are not aligned. Thus, consolidating Waymo vs. Levandowski (which doesn't exist) with Waymo vs. Uber is not an option. Thus, Uber can't claim that Levandowski's arbitration contract with Waymo covers Uber's problems. Therefore, Waymo can insist their case against Uber go to trial.
- Pyxl101 10y agoI think his point is: isn't that a bogus thing for Uber to claim? That it can't release documents because of someone else's fifth amendment privilege? It's not like Uber is married to Levandowski and has spousal privilege against testifying against him (although Uber sure is acting like they're married!). Can't they simply release the documents because they choose to? I don't see how Uber choosing to release documents that they have access to (which is not even testifying, by the way - it's just complying with discovery) can possibly violate someone else's fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. Perhaps a lawyer could speculate on whether a claim like this can have any merit.