5 ms·

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.

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.