4 ms·
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 clai
by 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 agoThe 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 agoAgree. 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 agoHa! That was me. Looks like I am the only one who holds that opinion around here.