4 ms·

Didn't Uber pay like $680,000,000 for this technology ?

by delegate 9y ago

Dangeranger 9y ago
Paying for stolen goods doesn't make them your property.
- idbehold 9y ago
  Uber should start a suit against Levandowski.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Well, that might incite Levandowski to explain just how much Uber knew and the situation was premeditated in an effort to protect himself. Given Google's assertions, if there is any truth to them I think that might open them up to being prosecuted for fraud.
  - yazaddaruvala 9y ago
    Uber should have uncovered this during due diligence. I'm not sure if they can even sue Levandowski at this point.
    - mahyarm 9y ago
      How can you although? Show us what is on every hard drive you ever owned? Uber doesnt have access to googles internal security logs.
      - waisbrot 9y ago
        The court order says that Uber was talking with Levandowski about buying his company _while he was still working at Google_: > Meanwhile, emails between Uber executives on January 12 and January 13 showed they had prepared a document titled “NewCo Milestones v5” for Levandowski to review in advance of a meeting the following day. He didn't quit until the 27th. If you're poaching someone highly-placed off of your competitor you either have a plan for how you'll prove that they _didn't_ steal secrets or (like Uber) you get court orders to expose all your files.
        linkregister 9y ago
        Is this industry standard? I'm not high-level so I wouldn't know. Are you saying this because you have first-hand knowledge?
        mahyarm 9y ago
        In general although, how do you deal with this kind of prove a negative situation? Hire high level employee X, talking while they are employed with your competitor or not, how do you prove they don't 'copy files' or bring documents with them to their house? Search their house? How do you know they didn't put them in some secret location?
    - dlgeek 9y ago
      Waymo's alleging they did* - there's a third party due-diligence report prepared by Stroz that both Uber and Levandowski especially are trying really hard to keep from handing over. Levandowski even filed an emergency appeal as a non-party to the case (which was rejected) to be prevented from just naming who it was who prepared the report. * (Well, Waymo's alleging that the court should make an adverse inference that they did because of Uber's behavior around the report).
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    Otto was fraud, with Uber's knowledge, right from the beginning. While Levandowski was working at Waymo, he and Kalanick had one of their little nighttime walks where they hashed out the deal: "you take Waymo's stuff, found a throwaway company, and we'll buy it a few months later". Of course, this couldn't be proved in court since there were no records of this deal, but it's absolutely what happened. (EDIT: Note that even Alsup thinks this is what happened, he just didn't think there was enough evidence to take action on it) Hence, there is no way Uber will sue Levandowski. He'd simply spill the beans and then Uber would be screwed.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      > Note that even Alsup thinks this is what happened, he just didn't think there was enough evidence to take action on it This is only a preliminary injunction. Uber is entitled to the most favorable interpretation of the evidence for this motion. They won't get that later, though.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    I think Uber and Levandowski have some sort of agreement that says Uber will defend him in court. In light of this, it would be difficult for Uber to argue they have grounds to sue him.
pfarnsworth 9y ago
They paid for the company and the employees. They didn't pay for LiDAR, which is the basis of the suit.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Well, they said they didn't pay for LiDAR. The company had only existed for a few months; it didn't have a big base of proprietary technology that was worth a bundle. So either the employees were worth hundreds of millions, or Uber was really paying for the stolen documents.
dragonwriter 9y ago
It didn't pay the owner of the technology $680,000,000; if I pay some guy on the street for your house, it doesn't give me the right to sleep there if he doesn't have the right to dispose of your property, no matter how much I pay.
gpm 9y ago
Apparently according to uber not at all, to quote the ruling > Defendants have also presented an “independent development” narrative in which they developed their own LiDAR technology without using any confidential information from Waymo. That narrative, however, studiously omitted any inquiry into Levandowski’s work, essentially erasing him from the history of Uber’s self-driving car development. Put differently, the record shows Uber bought Levandowski’s services for a tremendous amount of money and positioned him at the forefront of its self-driving car efforts but is barren on how Levandowski has been earning that money and title. (and later) > Indeed, defendants have already carefully crafted a narrative of their self-driving car efforts that conspicuously and incredibly denies any meaningful contribution by Levandowski - even though Uber, in a deal worth approximately $680 million dollars, hired him to lead those efforts.

Didn't Uber pay like $680,000,000 for this technology ?

Dangeranger 9y ago

Paying for stolen goods doesn't make them your property.

idbehold 9y ago
Uber should start a suit against Levandowski.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Well, that might incite Levandowski to explain just how much Uber knew and the situation was premeditated in an effort to protect himself. Given Google's assertions, if there is any truth to them I think that might open them up to being prosecuted for fraud.
- yazaddaruvala 9y ago
  Uber should have uncovered this during due diligence. I'm not sure if they can even sue Levandowski at this point.
  - mahyarm 9y ago
    How can you although? Show us what is on every hard drive you ever owned? Uber doesnt have access to googles internal security logs.
    - waisbrot 9y ago
      The court order says that Uber was talking with Levandowski about buying his company _while he was still working at Google_: > Meanwhile, emails between Uber executives on January 12 and January 13 showed they had prepared a document titled “NewCo Milestones v5” for Levandowski to review in advance of a meeting the following day. He didn't quit until the 27th. If you're poaching someone highly-placed off of your competitor you either have a plan for how you'll prove that they _didn't_ steal secrets or (like Uber) you get court orders to expose all your files.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        Is this industry standard? I'm not high-level so I wouldn't know. Are you saying this because you have first-hand knowledge?
      - mahyarm 9y ago
        In general although, how do you deal with this kind of prove a negative situation? Hire high level employee X, talking while they are employed with your competitor or not, how do you prove they don't 'copy files' or bring documents with them to their house? Search their house? How do you know they didn't put them in some secret location?
  - dlgeek 9y ago
    Waymo's alleging they did* - there's a third party due-diligence report prepared by Stroz that both Uber and Levandowski especially are trying really hard to keep from handing over. Levandowski even filed an emergency appeal as a non-party to the case (which was rejected) to be prevented from just naming who it was who prepared the report. * (Well, Waymo's alleging that the court should make an adverse inference that they did because of Uber's behavior around the report).
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Otto was fraud, with Uber's knowledge, right from the beginning. While Levandowski was working at Waymo, he and Kalanick had one of their little nighttime walks where they hashed out the deal: "you take Waymo's stuff, found a throwaway company, and we'll buy it a few months later". Of course, this couldn't be proved in court since there were no records of this deal, but it's absolutely what happened. (EDIT: Note that even Alsup thinks this is what happened, he just didn't think there was enough evidence to take action on it) Hence, there is no way Uber will sue Levandowski. He'd simply spill the beans and then Uber would be screwed.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    > Note that even Alsup thinks this is what happened, he just didn't think there was enough evidence to take action on it This is only a preliminary injunction. Uber is entitled to the most favorable interpretation of the evidence for this motion. They won't get that later, though.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  I think Uber and Levandowski have some sort of agreement that says Uber will defend him in court. In light of this, it would be difficult for Uber to argue they have grounds to sue him.

pfarnsworth 9y ago

They paid for the company and the employees. They didn't pay for LiDAR, which is the basis of the suit.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Well, they said they didn't pay for LiDAR. The company had only existed for a few months; it didn't have a big base of proprietary technology that was worth a bundle. So either the employees were worth hundreds of millions, or Uber was really paying for the stolen documents.

dragonwriter 9y ago

It didn't pay the owner of the technology $680,000,000; if I pay some guy on the street for your house, it doesn't give me the right to sleep there if he doesn't have the right to dispose of your property, no matter how much I pay.

gpm 9y ago

Apparently according to uber not at all, to quote the ruling > Defendants have also presented an “independent development” narrative in which they developed their own LiDAR technology without using any confidential information from Waymo. That narrative, however, studiously omitted any inquiry into Levandowski’s work, essentially erasing him from the history of Uber’s self-driving car development. Put differently, the record shows Uber bought Levandowski’s services for a tremendous amount of money and positioned him at the forefront of its self-driving car efforts but is barren on how Levandowski has been earning that money and title. (and later) > Indeed, defendants have already carefully crafted a narrative of their self-driving car efforts that conspicuously and incredibly denies any meaningful contribution by Levandowski - even though Uber, in a deal worth approximately $680 million dollars, hired him to lead those efforts.