5 ms·

I disagree. It's only good if they find something, which to me is doubtful given the fact they didn't find something already, and given the fact that the judge

I disagree. It's only good if they find something, which to me is doubtful given the fact they didn't find something already, and given the fact that the judge didn't issue a single injunction against Uber for trade secrets. As far as I can tell from reading the injunction, there wasn't a single case of a trade secret from those documents making its way into Uber's technology. The fact that none of the technology made it into their Lidar designs makes it hard to believe that anything will be found. The idea that somehow discovery will determine there was something stolen seems pretty low at this point. I agree that the order to compel returning the documents is interesting, and to me potentially the most "damaging" if they are forced to fire Levandowski.

manyoso 9y ago
It isn't just the order to return the documents. Uber is compelled by June 23rd for a complete and chronological record of everyone at Uber or on behalf of Uber who discussed LIDAR with Anthony and what they talked about. They have to question all of these people about knowledge about those 14,000 files and contents. Under oath. How many employees do you think that is? How many people? If Anthony discussed these 14,000 files with anyone - which is not a stretch to think that he has - then they have to admit it under oath or deny it under oath. You think others are going to want to perjure themselves for Uber?
- pfarnsworth 9y ago
  You're presuming that they will find something. I'm presuming they won't. None of the technology made it into Uber's Lidar design, and already no evidence was found that a single document made its way into Uber's servers. Remember, they already went through a round of discovery and they found nothing. The idea that Levandowski would be telling people "Well, from Google's documents, I remember x y z" sounds awfully ridiculous.
  - manyoso 9y ago
    I think the Judge is very clearly signaling that if any pilfered files were used by Uber that he is intent on getting to the bottom of it. And that all the claims of privilege that Uber has been claiming so far in the expedited discovery is about to go bye bye. The head of research on LIDAR at Uber had 14,000 files from Google that were pilfered before he left and he did this for purely for shits and giggles and not in any way to use these files for anything in his future job? The Judge says in the order it is preposterous to think this. Still, it is up to Google to prove misuse and he is intent on giving them the discovery they need to do so if they can.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      The narrative of Levandowski's theft of the documents is premature. If you read the forensic examiner's report, it amounts to "checked out project using TortoiseSVN, plugged in a USB device, installed proprietary Google Linux distribution." The "wiped" adjective is inaccurate since a disk format is required to install Linux. Levandowski didn't zero the hard drive or anything like that. There's no evidence yet that Waymo files touched anyone's personal device. That said, on pages 13-15 of the injunction document, Judge Alsop sees clear influence of trade secrets in the design of the Lidar's PCB. This is the damning portion that lead to the injunction.
      - i_like_lamp 9y ago
        Agree. There was a good analysis of the forensic expert's testimony by some other users here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591 There's a link to the testimony in that topmost comment too for those that want to read it for themselves.
        linkregister 9y ago
        Ha! That was me. Looks like I am the only one who holds that opinion around here.
kbenson 9y ago
> The fact that none of the technology made it into their Lidar designs makes it hard to believe that anything will be found. This is a bit confusing. If none of the technology made it into their designs, why was a manufacturer delivering a part proprietary to Google to them? That's my understanding of what kicked this whole thing off, Google being accidentally CC'd by a manufacturer for a purchase of a part that nobody else should have known about. If that's correct, while it doesn't necessarily mean that Google tech was utilized in some integral component, it does signal that they weren't averse to using that tech in some fashion. I'm left wondering if the real meat of this case is to be found as Google examines the hardware, which it sounds like they've now been given the go ahead to do.
- i_like_lamp 9y ago
  I don't work in hardware, but a friend of mine who does said that it's not really all that surprising for two companies to end up with similar designs if they are working on a similar problem AND are using the same supplier. The supplier is providing their own expertise and some of that expertise comes from working with other customers.
linkregister 9y ago
I think we read the injunction differently. On pages 13-15, Judge Alsop states that he found two instances of what he thought was obvious influence of trade secrets. I agree that this was Alsop's backhanded way of getting Uber to fire Levandowski; either Levandowski will reveal the documents and face prison, or he never had them on personal devices and Uber still has to fire him because he didn't produce them.
- i_like_lamp 9y ago
  And if Levandowsky genuinely doesn't have the documents? After finally taking the time to read the forensic testimony myself, I found it very inconclusive. Yes, he may have taken the documents or he may not have. The evidence presented in the testimony was far from being a smoking gun. I highly encourage others to read the testimony for themselves and come to their own conclusion.

manyoso 9y ago

It isn't just the order to return the documents. Uber is compelled by June 23rd for a complete and chronological record of everyone at Uber or on behalf of Uber who discussed LIDAR with Anthony and what they talked about. They have to question all of these people about knowledge about those 14,000 files and contents. Under oath. How many employees do you think that is? How many people? If Anthony discussed these 14,000 files with anyone - which is not a stretch to think that he has - then they have to admit it under oath or deny it under oath. You think others are going to want to perjure themselves for Uber?

pfarnsworth 9y ago
You're presuming that they will find something. I'm presuming they won't. None of the technology made it into Uber's Lidar design, and already no evidence was found that a single document made its way into Uber's servers. Remember, they already went through a round of discovery and they found nothing. The idea that Levandowski would be telling people "Well, from Google's documents, I remember x y z" sounds awfully ridiculous.
- manyoso 9y ago
  I think the Judge is very clearly signaling that if any pilfered files were used by Uber that he is intent on getting to the bottom of it. And that all the claims of privilege that Uber has been claiming so far in the expedited discovery is about to go bye bye. The head of research on LIDAR at Uber had 14,000 files from Google that were pilfered before he left and he did this for purely for shits and giggles and not in any way to use these files for anything in his future job? The Judge says in the order it is preposterous to think this. Still, it is up to Google to prove misuse and he is intent on giving them the discovery they need to do so if they can.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    The narrative of Levandowski's theft of the documents is premature. If you read the forensic examiner's report, it amounts to "checked out project using TortoiseSVN, plugged in a USB device, installed proprietary Google Linux distribution." The "wiped" adjective is inaccurate since a disk format is required to install Linux. Levandowski didn't zero the hard drive or anything like that. There's no evidence yet that Waymo files touched anyone's personal device. That said, on pages 13-15 of the injunction document, Judge Alsop sees clear influence of trade secrets in the design of the Lidar's PCB. This is the damning portion that lead to the injunction.
    - i_like_lamp 9y ago
      Agree. There was a good analysis of the forensic expert's testimony by some other users here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591 There's a link to the testimony in that topmost comment too for those that want to read it for themselves.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        Ha! That was me. Looks like I am the only one who holds that opinion around here.

kbenson 9y ago

> The fact that none of the technology made it into their Lidar designs makes it hard to believe that anything will be found. This is a bit confusing. If none of the technology made it into their designs, why was a manufacturer delivering a part proprietary to Google to them? That's my understanding of what kicked this whole thing off, Google being accidentally CC'd by a manufacturer for a purchase of a part that nobody else should have known about. If that's correct, while it doesn't necessarily mean that Google tech was utilized in some integral component, it does signal that they weren't averse to using that tech in some fashion. I'm left wondering if the real meat of this case is to be found as Google examines the hardware, which it sounds like they've now been given the go ahead to do.

i_like_lamp 9y ago
I don't work in hardware, but a friend of mine who does said that it's not really all that surprising for two companies to end up with similar designs if they are working on a similar problem AND are using the same supplier. The supplier is providing their own expertise and some of that expertise comes from working with other customers.

linkregister 9y ago

I think we read the injunction differently. On pages 13-15, Judge Alsop states that he found two instances of what he thought was obvious influence of trade secrets. I agree that this was Alsop's backhanded way of getting Uber to fire Levandowski; either Levandowski will reveal the documents and face prison, or he never had them on personal devices and Uber still has to fire him because he didn't produce them.

i_like_lamp 9y ago
And if Levandowsky genuinely doesn't have the documents? After finally taking the time to read the forensic testimony myself, I found it very inconclusive. Yes, he may have taken the documents or he may not have. The evidence presented in the testimony was far from being a smoking gun. I highly encourage others to read the testimony for themselves and come to their own conclusion.