4 ms·
Well, the "why not" of that scenario is that Levandowski would have to abandon his 5th Amendment protection in order to do so, and almost guarantee criminal pro
by aetherson 9y ago
Well, the "why not" of that scenario is that Levandowski would have to abandon his 5th Amendment protection in order to do so, and almost guarantee criminal prosecution.
I don't really agree with the characterization of Uber throwing Levandowski under the bus: they've been very scrupulous with him, and basically they're only threatening firing because Alsup twisted their arm. But let's say that Levandowski feels betrayed.
First: Note that Levandowski is super rich (Google paid him north of $100M). It's not like losing his job is going to prevent him from living a life of luxury forever.
Second: If he maintains his 5th Amendment protections, even if he does get prosecuted, what's going to happen? It seems like there's pretty good evidence that he stole the files, but without something more, how much in the way of damages will the prosecution be able to prove? Is this something that the US Attorney even wants to bother with?
- mabbo 9y agoSo he strikes a deal with the Justice Department. Minimal sentence (or maybe immunity?) and he hands them the execs of a company that has continually pissed off governments world-wide by skirting around laws.
- revelation 9y agoThere are no federal or criminal charges at all. This is all civil.
- emn13 9y agoYet. But I agree that this talk of a deal sounds rather baseless. Sounds more like hollywood than real life.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoJudge Alsup did tell federal prosecutors that they should take a look at the case, though.
- aetherson 9y agoI mean... maybe. Assuming that he actually has damning evidence against Kalanick, and that, even presuming that Uber did know about the theft, they weren't circumspect about admitting it. That seems like a pretty narrow scenario. You have to believe that: a. Levandowski feels betrayed by Uber (I don't think he has cause to) b. Uber did in fact know about the theft when they hired Levandowski. c. Kalanick straightforwardly said something about the theft that was so damning that it makes for a good case a year later, or provided some kind of documentary evidence to Levandowski, rather than wink-wink nudge-nudging. d. A US Attorney is interested in offering this kind of deal (that is, giving one white-collar criminal a good deal in order to go after... a somewhat richer and more famous white-collar criminal).
- femto113 9y agoI wouldn't underestimate the prosecution's leverage here: 14,000 counts of even a relatively minor crime like "theft of company resources" could add up to a lot of time.