3 ms·
"Last week, Uber notified Levandowski that he either needs to deny that he downloaded and took any documents from Google, or to hand over the documents to Googl
by linkregister 9y ago
"Last week, Uber notified Levandowski that he either needs to deny that he downloaded and took any documents from Google, or to hand over the documents to Google. Otherwise, he would be at risk of getting fired from Uber. Uber has already removed Levandowski from working on any projects related to LiDAR technology.
Levandowski’s lawyers argued that the court’s order to Uber, as well as Uber’s threat to Levandowski, would violate his constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination."
This is the actually interesting part of the article. Judge Alsop directly addressed the Constitutionality of compelling Uber to use any means necessary, including termination. I doubt that Levandowski's attorneys will prevail.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoThat fifth amendment claim always seemed really bogus to me. Levanowski, who is not one of the parties of the suit, wants to prohibit Uber from turning over information to Waymo, because the information may incriminate Levandowski. Um, so? Why is that a reason for the court not to allow it? I don't have a fifth amendment right to keep others from incriminating me!
- adjkant 9y agoUber is claiming that it doesn't have the information, so only Levandowski can turn over the info according to them. Therefore it is still self-incrimination.
- linkregister 9y agoI think that information is the attorney-client privileged stuff; the 5th Amendment information is held by Levandowski (in my interpretation).
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoSo Uber is saying, "We don't have any of the stolen documents; talk to Levandowski to get those"? And Levandowski is saying "I won't say anything about the stolen documents; Fifth Amendment"? That sounds reasonable... ... right up until Levandowski and/or Uber tried to use that approach to block disclosure of the name of the company that did the due diligence investigation. That bit of insane over-reach ruins my ability to see this as anything reasonable.
- linkregister 9y agoI agree with you. If they're attempting to use the 5th Amendment to conceal that information, I assume it's only a matter of time before Judge Alsop compels Uber anyway. What duty does Uber, a separate entity, have to protect Levandowski if it retains a copy of the report?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago> I assume it's only a matter of time before Judge Alsop compels Uber anyway. For that information, he already has.
- dilemma 9y agoBut Levandowski is Uber.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoWell, Uber has some kind of agreement to defend Levandowski. And he's an employee. But no, Uber doesn't want Levandowski to be Uber. That would make Uber responsible for the theft of documents from Waymo, and fully in possession of the contents. That is not a position that Uber wants to be in...