25 ms·

Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

611 points by coloneltcb 9y ago

tyingq 9y ago
Of course, whatever salary he was making is far less interesting than the direct benefit of the original Otto acquisition.
- nevir 9y ago
  Much/most of it was probably tied to his continued employment
  - alpha_squared 9y ago
    Wouldn't that be the case only if his employment was that valuable? If the acquisition was purely for IP, his employment could just be a byproduct of that.
- jbigelow76 9y ago
  Levandowski got $250 million in Uber stock during the Otto acquisition and per a story on Techcrunch as of May 3rd, none of it had vested yet. Doesn't seem likely it will either.
  - abvdasker 9y ago
    The leaked termination letter in the comments above indicates that he is being fired with cause, which means that he will get little or nothing at the end of all this.
  - obstinate 9y ago
    If there is any justice, Google will claw back significant fractions of the $120M it paid him through arbitration. It's unacceptable for this guy to sail off into the sunset after doing what he has done (if indeed it is proven that he did it).
jacquesm 9y ago
Surprised that took this long. Hot potato dropped, now let's see where the damage claims will point.
- acchow 9y ago
  I don't really understand how damages claims work. Can someone shed some light? No company has made any money off self driving cars. Google/Waymo has definitely not. How can they demonstrate damages?
  - hackunomatter 9y ago
    I think, basically, Uber will pay some $$$ to make the lawsuit go away and "license" Waymo's tech (which they already had, courtesy Mr. Lewandowski, but now will legally have it).
    - bykovich2 9y ago
      You don't think Google's out for blood? Didn't they announce a Waymo partnership with Lyft a couple of weeks ago?
      - hackunomatter 9y ago
        Google owns a chunk of Uber, so I'm not sure they'd want to wipe out their investment?
        acchow 9y ago
        Yeah, doesn't Google have something like a 6.7% stake in Uber? Even with share diluation by half, at a $60bn valuation that's still $2bn. Do we really think Google can win much more than $2bn in this Waymo lawsuit?
        scott_karana 9y ago
        That valuation is predicated on Uber still being worth that much, if they end up guilty in criminal proceedings (for example).
aioprisan 9y ago
That too much longer than expected. What was Uber thinking?
- camus2 9y ago
  From the start it was obvious that the interests of the employee and Uber's didn't align at all in that lawsuit. The question now is, what did Uber know and when did it know it. Did Uber had contact with that employee when he was still working at Google? I wouldn't be surprised if Uber sued the guy in the future.
gumby 9y ago
I was thinking simply, "too little, too late" but then realized this could be quite interesting. Uber's model in most domains is to push hard over the line in the hopes of moving that line. More charitably this could be called "ask for forgiveness rather than permission". So canning Levendowski could be seen as simply a case of this. But Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, who could now spill beans on all sorts of unsuspected malfeasance. At this point what has he got to lose? If he decides to cooperate with google things could get very interesting.
- it_learnses 9y ago
  Unless they promised to give him a large sum / stocks after everything is settled if he agrees not to talk.
  - frozenport 9y ago
    Would be tricky to pull off without a serious charge of "impeding justice".
  - kognate 9y ago
    In the USA legal system, this would be (at best) witness tampering and possibly obstruction of justice. Federal witness tampering and obstruction are things that _very_ few lawyers would knowingly participate in because you don't have to be successful to be convicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering
    - DINKDINK 9y ago
      Uber: Hey, we're really sorry that things didn't work out but "here's some equity for the time that you worked here" oh and by the way here's the estimated value of that equity if we win the lawsuit or don't win the law suit.
      - potatolicious 9y ago
        Despite popular belief, the judiciary is in fact not a pack of nincompoops that can be trivially bypassed by a nudge and a wink... Nor is the judiciary powerless against attempts to exploit loopholes, if they indeed exist. "Muahahaha! The law is powerless against me and I can violate it with impunity by judicious word choice" is largely a fantasy.
AngelloPozo 9y ago
Uber followed through on their public warning. Doesn't look good I must say.
openmosix 9y ago
Interesting. The situation between Uber and Levendowski always reminded me of the prisoner dilemma. If one bails on the other, might the other starts talking about what really happened? I think that staying together would have been the best course of action for Uber. Very interesting to see how this will develop.
- untog 9y ago
  If you talk about what happened it doesn't magically mean all the punishment falls on the other side. If Levendowski admits to breaking the law he'll be punished, no matter if he is or isn't friends with Uber at the time.
  - openmosix 9y ago
    Depends. If the story is how Waymo pictured it (the entire acquisition was an orchestrated plan with Uber to take IPs out of Google), if I were Levandowski I'd be reaching out to Waymo and propose a deal. I'll give you information to crucify Uber but you let me go. I guess Waymo is after Uber more than a single engineer.
    - hluska 9y ago
      The only issue is Levandowski could still face criminal charges and, under the circumstances can he trust Waymo not to take every drop of that information and hand it over to the most proximate prosecutor?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- mulletbum 9y ago
  Only if Uber knew they had done something wrong. If not, bailing on him now just places the blame squarely on him.
- sjg007 9y ago
  This will probably be a case study eventually.
tmh79 9y ago
OK: Here is some context for those who aren't current on the case. One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required This is one part of a number of things that came out of preliminary injunction hearings, other parts are (1) the breadth of the case is much smaller than as originally filed, its now about trade secrets, not about patent infringement (2) Waymo is allowed a bit more indepth "discover" to see if they can find evidence of their tech in ubers documents or in ubers hardware itself. Legally, there is no inference that can be drawn from this to imply uber is guilty, they have willfully carried out a court order. Uber still has a self driving car program, that is staffed by a few hundred engineers. The case against levandowski has been referred to a federal prosecutor to review the possiblity of criminal charges against levandowski, if I was his lawyer and he was in this position, I would likely refer him to "plead the fifth" regardless of his guilt. The case is most definitely still going to trial
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required How does firing him equate to pressuring him to testify?
  - empath75 9y ago
    "If you don't testify or produce documents, we're going to fire you." "I still refuse to testify." "Alright, you're fired." That's all they can do.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    What else would you have them do? Jail him? Torture him? The company has limited tools at its disposal the ultimate one being to fire the person.
ProfessorLayton 9y ago
Interesting. Could Levandowski throw Uber under the bus without incriminating himself? Additionally, I wonder if Uber has clawback agreements in place for their Otto acquisition.
- kognate 9y ago
  Probably not. The biggest hurdle here is that it was Levandowski who took the documents on his own initiative. Even if he'd been asked by someone high up at Uber to steal the information he might escape criminal prosecution but he'd never keep his money.
Kiro 9y ago
What if Uber is actually innocent? I've always just assumed they are guilty and planned this all along.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > What if Uber is actually innocent? If an ex employee of a company making a competing product walked into my office with a large treasure trove of files I would not automatically assume that he had re-created those files in his spare time. Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    >Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising Should be fun when the due diligence docs come out, and we get Uber's view of how Otto went from a value of zero to $680M in 7 months, with only legitimate IP, 5 Trucks, and 90 employees.
    - mikekij 9y ago
      This. How is this not the main crux of the argument for Uber's being complicit in the IP theft?
      - hluska 9y ago
        I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if Uber could argue: 1.) At the time of acquisition, Levandowski was one of the world's leading experts on self driving technology. 2.) As one of the world's leading experts, Levandowski was able to recruit an incredible team. 3.) Self driving technology could be worth trillions and, in Uber's particular case, it would remove one of their biggest cost centres, thus making their business instantly profitable.
        tyingq 9y ago
        Assuming that roughly matches the due diligence documents.
philip1209 9y ago
Oh wow, I just noticed under the related stories that Travis's mother was killed and father was seriously injured in a boating accident this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/business/uber-chief-executive-mother-killed-boating-accident.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/business/uber-chief-execu...
- randomf1fan 9y ago
  That's really terrible news. My condolences to the Kalanick family in this difficult time. I hope his dad recovers soon. I'm going to call my mom today and tell her I love her.
- ianamartin 9y ago
  As much as I dislike Kalanick and Uber, this is terrible news, and I feel awful for him. I hope there are no people jaded enough to be happy about this. Losing a loved one goes beyond anything. Kalanick may be a dick and Uber may be legally and morally problematic, but at a human level, this just sucks. I hope he and his family can find some peace.
yeukhon 9y ago
I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over. Maybe still too early to draw any conclusion, but I can't seem to have any counter potential excuse or reason to believe the self-driving programs weren't stolen. Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance? Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?
- xapata 9y ago
  If your own testimony is the only available evidence against you, that'd be a weak case.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    But keep in mind that in civil cases like this one (unlike criminal cases), prosecutors and juries are allowed to draw "adverse inferences" from your silence and take it as evidence that you're guilty. Levandowski certainly isn't doing himself any favors by taking the 5th.
    - ivraatiems 9y ago
      If he is guilty, then he absolutely is; an adverse inference is nowhere near as serious as sworn testimony proving something happened.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - graysonk 9y ago
      Not a lawyer, but I thought that was only applicable if you suddenly plead the 5th after originally answering questions? From what I know he has always remained silent so I don't think they could do much with that.
      - URSpider94 9y ago
Overtonwindow 9y ago
This issue brings to mind the fight over Phillip Shoemaker at Apple. Self driving cars and the engineering behind it seems highly specialized. Will this case with Levandowski put pressure on engineers to stay put, a stronger, tacit non-compete and no-poaching rule?
- ryandamm 9y ago
  The nice thing about California is employers' concerns about the market, competition, and trade secrecy cannot take priority over an individual's right to work (with narrow exceptions for owners selling a business). To the extent it puts pressure on the companies -- perhaps. But it shouldn't hurt the employees themselves; on the contrary, perhaps it encourages the companies to keep engineers around by granting enticing equity packages with long-ish vesting schedules. Or you're right, and they'll just collude. Guess it could go either way...!
- greglindahl 9y ago
  I don't think it will affect any ethical engineer -- you know, the ones who destroy/delete confidential information when leaving a job.
- linkregister 9y ago
  California has a law limiting the effectiveness of non-compete agreements. Most of these jobs are in California. Perhaps the companies will lobby California lawmakers, but I doubt it would be successful.
ziszis 9y ago
Link to formal termination letter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/05/termination-letter.pdf https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/0... The termination letter indicates that the termination is for cause and may have implications on stock awards and other compensation: "Under the Stock Award and other agreements, you are entitled to 20 days to cure the events that give rise to this termination for Cause. This letter constitutes the “prior written notice” triggering the commencement of that 20day period."
- United857 9y ago
  IANAL but doesn't the letter's language ("that termination shall become effective 20 days from today") imply that he has 20 days to fix things, and that the termination is not a already done deal?
  - jeeyoungk 9y ago
    I'm assuming that since he's a high-profile hire from an acquisition with a lot of vesting cycles attached to it, there are more required legal procedures including time window to amend things.
  - mikeryan 9y ago
    "Cause" has meaning here. His days working for Uber are likely done but if he choose to rectify the issues stated in the letter then he might be able to get the terminated for "Cause" removed in which case he likely has some parachute clauses and payouts which can come into effect.
    - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
      Assuming Uber didn't want to fire him, and he rectifies the issues, then I don't believe there is anything preventing them from hiring him back. Actually there's nothing preventing them from hiring him back after the court case concludes, is there? IANAL.
stevebmark 9y ago
This is incredible. It looks like Uber is trying to pin this on him. I really hope it's true (and proven in court) that Uber encouraged him to steal secrets and start a company with the intention of Uber buying his half-assed startup. Because this firing totally fits the bill of Uber executives' public behavior, trying to shift the blame and throw people under the bus.
- aetherson 9y ago
  Uber isn't trying to pin thinks on Levandowski. They've actually been very courteous of him. The deal is: Levandowski pled the 5th and refused to produce a lot of documents that he was ordered to by the court. Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted (EDIT: dragonwriter points out that non-natural persons can plead the 5th. For various reasons, Uber isn't asserting 5th Amendment protections, and the details of why it isn't aren't wildly important here. I regret the error). Judge Alsup basically said, "You can't, like, inherit Levandowski's protections. You have to do everything possible to you in order to produce the documents that I've ordered you to produce. That means getting your employee to cooperate, or firing him." Uber asked Levandowksi to cooperate, and then when he didn't, they fired him. It was very much on Alsup's order.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted. Uber can plead the fifth [EDIT: no, it can't, see note at end] (it applies not just to natural persons, and corporations are subject to criminal process as well), but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them, and if you take the fifth you can't do it selectively, any issue you take the fifth on you can't offer any testimony relating to. Taking the Fifth would be essentially waiving a defense on key points, and civil suits have a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so it would be fairly easy for Waymo to prove points against Uber where Uber essentially surrendered the ability to defend. EDIT: while the discussion of the effects of taking the Fifth in a civil case of this type are something I stand behind, the basic premise (that Uber could take the Fifth) is incorrect; the self-incrimination protection of the Fifth is an exceptional provision of the Bill of Rights in that it has been held to apply only to individuals, not corporations and other similar entities, under the "collective entity rule."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mikekij 9y ago
I would think Google's argument would only need to be "Uber spent $600M on a 9-month old company". That alone is a huge red-flag, no?
- femto113 9y ago
  This--plus there is some evidence that suggests Uber already negotiated to acquire Otto before it even came into existence.
- joering2 9y ago
  Google spent $1600M on a 18-months old company. Youtube starts in April 2005. Is bought by Google October 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube
  - femto113 9y ago
    By that point "the site delivered an average of 100 million video views per day". Otto never delivered anything.
- hm8 9y ago
  This is another. Not sure if raising money in itself is a red flag. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/argo-ai#/entity https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/argo-ai#/entity
sfdghjkl2345678 9y ago
It's ON!!!!
joering2 9y ago
... comes as a result of his involvement in a legal battle between Uber and Waymo, the self-driving technology unit spun out of Google last year. Honest question - can they do that to him, or anyone else, before guilt is actually proven? What if the result is that nothing is found?? Can he counter-sue for wrongful termination?? Next time if you are company X and are angry your employee Y left for company Z, just sue Z in hopes they will let Y go.
- chc 9y ago
  They're firing him because they ordered him to cooperate with the investigation and he refused to do so, not for being guilty of a crime.
dafty4 9y ago
Are there truly that many Lidar-related trade "secrets" that Google knows about that suppliers and competitors at Velodyne, SPIE, ex-military researcers, etc. don't already? If Levandowski is targeted by federal prosecutors, can he argue inevitable discovery based on existing public domain principles and papers (textbooks, etc.)? I find it hard to believe that Google is the only innovator in Lidar thus far. It just seems like they are because it's now cool.
- asr 9y ago
  The Preliminary Injunction order from earlier this month basically agreed with you and said many of Waymo's trade secret claims are probably overbroad and won't hold up. But, the court said, it looks very much like Levandowski did take Waymo's files and use them at Uber, and the files "likely contain at least some trade secrets." So, basically, even if these are weak trade secrets claims and there aren't that many secrets, Uber and Levandowski have looked so bad on the question of whether they stole them that the Court was willing to say "fire him or else." Here is that order if you're interested: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244394038&z=018a5648 https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244394038... See pages 11-17.
7ero 9y ago
At this point, I think this is a move to slow Uber's entry into the market, there is probably irrevocable damage because I would imagine it's hard to prevent their IP from being used. I wonder how things would have played out if Otto was never acquired.
Arizhel 9y ago
>So yeah, it happens; it's just a spectacularly bad idea for the police to do it. If they hadn't declined to file charges, my friend and another murder victim would probably still be alive today Sorry about your friend, but why is it a "spectacularly bad idea" for police to do so? What alternative do they have? If the sole victim is unwilling to cooperate with the investigation and subsequent trial, their chances of actually succeeding in imprisoning that scumbag are approximately zero. If you want to blame someone, go find the stupid, selfish woman who wanted to "let it drop" 5 years ago. Remember that old saying about evil flourishing because good people do nothing.
- xhedley 9y ago
  Arizhel, I have never been subjected to rape and attempted strangulation myself. But someone that I know well has. In the country that I live in, the justice system rightly requires that guilt in criminal cases is proved "beyond reasonable doubt". In court, the accused has every reason to allege that the alleged victim was "up for it" and "consenting" and "enjoyed it". The victim who "lets it drop" in these circumstances may be selfish - but they aren't stupid when they weigh the cost to themselves of an adversarial court case against the gain to themselves of a rape conviction. In an ideal world all women would feel strong enough to testify in a rape case but maybe this isn't an ideal world. Testifying that someone raped you isn't like testifying that someone stole your wallet. It's way more intimate and personal and dangerous. To the thread starter - I am so sorry that your friend was raped and killed. Please look after yourself and talk to someone about how you are feeling.
  - Arizhel 9y ago
    OK, but that still doesn't explain why it's a "spectacularly bad idea" for police/DA to not bother prosecuting in cases like this. What exactly are they supposed to do when they don't have a cooperative victim? Why is it not-stupid for the victim to avoid the costs of an adversarial court case, but it's stupid for the DA to avoid a case that he or she is guaranteed to lose?
    - Arizhel 9y ago
rmellow 9y ago
Not mentioned in the article: Uber is investing in a self-driving research unit in Toronto, Canada led by Raquel Urtasun [1]. Seems like a move to dodge all this Waymo brouhaha and benefit from Toronto's deep learning scene. [1] https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/uber-hires-raquel-urtasun-to-lead-a-new-atg-self-driving-unit-in-toronto/amp/ https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/uber-hires-raquel-urta...
- xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
  Or they decided to hire a researcher and her small team of grad students to feed them research before publishing.
  - rmellow 9y ago
    There are quite a few positions open in Toronto[1], which leads me to believe that actual development of self-driving is happening in the city. The current state of immigration in the US has been reported to drive developments in deep learning to Canada[2]. [1] https://careers-uber.icims.com/jobs/search?ss=1&searchCategory=818705&searchLocation=12955-12964-Toronto https://careers-uber.icims.com/jobs/search?ss=1&searchCatego... [2] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-new-ai-hub-in-canada-is-welcoming-the-scientists-trump-is-pushing-away https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-new-ai-hub-in-c...
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Not exactly unexpected given the court order earlier, interesting bit about how he has 20 days to decide if he wants to rectify the 'cause'. Presumably that would mean admitting stuff that he previously felt would incriminate himself so doing so would put him into more jeopardy on some axis. This has got to be painful for all the parties involved, I can only hope that people who are watching are thinking to themselves "hmm, seems like some bad choices." And whether or not they are really bad or just being painted that way, it gives you a sense of how everything will be used to craft a narrative around the sequence of events that serves the purposes of the people doing the crafting, not necessarily the participants about whom the narrative speaks. Having experienced personally the effects of bad actors trying to create a narrative that differed markedly from 'reality' in order to protect their own vulnerability I know how pulling only certain "facts" out of the history can tell a different story than the truth.
- bfstein 9y ago
  The 20 days bit is standard in termination for cause. You need to give the employee a chance to cure the damages before you terminate them for cause.
ianamartin 9y ago
If he stays out of jail re: the criminal prosecution, the hype will die down, people will forget about it, the internet outrage machine will move on, and he'll do something else and be fine.
accountyaccount 9y ago
probably a good move
throwaway13234 9y ago
Statement from Levandowski's lawyers: https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pd... "The bite of the Court’s May 11, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Order, as it relates to nonparty Anthony Levandowski, can be summarized quite simply: 'Waive your Fifth Amendment rights... or I will have you fired. The choice is yours, Mr. Levandowski.' But, even when framed as a “choice,” this command runs counter to nearly a half century of United States Supreme Court precedent, beginning with Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment forbids a government entity from threatening an individual with the choice “between self-incrimination and job forfeiture.” Id. at 497, 500. As the Supreme Court observed in Garrity, the “option to lose [one’s] means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent.” Id. at 497. As the Supreme Court made clear, whenever a state actor imposes this choice between “the rock and the whirlpool,” it engages in unlawful constitutional compulsion, which, among other things, operates to immunize any resulting testimonial statements." Isn't anyone else here bothered by the due process implications of Judge Alsup's demand to force Levandowski to give up a Constitutional right or be fired? I'm generally a fan of Alsup, but this sets terrible precedence.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- austenallred 9y ago
  As easy as it is to hate on Uber, this is indeed troubling. Odd that you can tie such things to Constitutional rights.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    The thing to note here, is that as far as Alsup is concerned, Levandowski isn't a party to the case. There's Uber and Waymo. Uber has been instructed to get information for Waymo as part of a civil proceeding in which Levandowski is not a party. To do anything less than their fullest to compel Levandowski to give that information to Waymo would make Uber liable. Its worth remembering that, at this point, this is only a civil suit, so among other things, silence can actually be used against you (adverse interference).
Everhusk 9y ago
It's sad to see Uber destroy a talented engineer's credibility like this... Moment of silence for the man who once went out and built a self driving motorcycle on his own [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CYGT97i8qU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CYGT97i8qU
- scott_karana 9y ago
  I think he ruined his own credibility via mass theft of his precious employer's files. His current employer is irrelevant. Plus, "on his own" is not correct. Team Blue 2005 had nine members: http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/TechPapers/BlueTeam.pdf http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/TechPapers/BlueTea...
walshemj 9y ago
Isn't anyone concerned that you can be fired for excising your rights under the constitution?
wdb 9y ago
What stops Uber from hiring him again as a contractor?

611 points by coloneltcb 9y ago

Of course, whatever salary he was making is far less interesting than the direct benefit of the original Otto acquisition.

nevir 9y ago
Much/most of it was probably tied to his continued employment
- alpha_squared 9y ago
  Wouldn't that be the case only if his employment was that valuable? If the acquisition was purely for IP, his employment could just be a byproduct of that.
jbigelow76 9y ago
Levandowski got $250 million in Uber stock during the Otto acquisition and per a story on Techcrunch as of May 3rd, none of it had vested yet. Doesn't seem likely it will either.
- abvdasker 9y ago
  The leaked termination letter in the comments above indicates that he is being fired with cause, which means that he will get little or nothing at the end of all this.
- obstinate 9y ago
  If there is any justice, Google will claw back significant fractions of the $120M it paid him through arbitration. It's unacceptable for this guy to sail off into the sunset after doing what he has done (if indeed it is proven that he did it).

jacquesm 9y ago

Surprised that took this long. Hot potato dropped, now let's see where the damage claims will point.

acchow 9y ago
I don't really understand how damages claims work. Can someone shed some light? No company has made any money off self driving cars. Google/Waymo has definitely not. How can they demonstrate damages?
- hackunomatter 9y ago
  I think, basically, Uber will pay some $$$ to make the lawsuit go away and "license" Waymo's tech (which they already had, courtesy Mr. Lewandowski, but now will legally have it).
  - bykovich2 9y ago
    You don't think Google's out for blood? Didn't they announce a Waymo partnership with Lyft a couple of weeks ago?
    - hackunomatter 9y ago
      Google owns a chunk of Uber, so I'm not sure they'd want to wipe out their investment?
      - acchow 9y ago
        Yeah, doesn't Google have something like a 6.7% stake in Uber? Even with share diluation by half, at a $60bn valuation that's still $2bn. Do we really think Google can win much more than $2bn in this Waymo lawsuit?
        scott_karana 9y ago
        That valuation is predicated on Uber still being worth that much, if they end up guilty in criminal proceedings (for example).

aioprisan 9y ago

That too much longer than expected. What was Uber thinking?

camus2 9y ago
From the start it was obvious that the interests of the employee and Uber's didn't align at all in that lawsuit. The question now is, what did Uber know and when did it know it. Did Uber had contact with that employee when he was still working at Google? I wouldn't be surprised if Uber sued the guy in the future.

gumby 9y ago

I was thinking simply, "too little, too late" but then realized this could be quite interesting. Uber's model in most domains is to push hard over the line in the hopes of moving that line. More charitably this could be called "ask for forgiveness rather than permission". So canning Levendowski could be seen as simply a case of this. But Google's suit is against Uber, not Levendowski, who could now spill beans on all sorts of unsuspected malfeasance. At this point what has he got to lose? If he decides to cooperate with google things could get very interesting.

it_learnses 9y ago
Unless they promised to give him a large sum / stocks after everything is settled if he agrees not to talk.
- frozenport 9y ago
  Would be tricky to pull off without a serious charge of "impeding justice".
- kognate 9y ago
  In the USA legal system, this would be (at best) witness tampering and possibly obstruction of justice. Federal witness tampering and obstruction are things that _very_ few lawyers would knowingly participate in because you don't have to be successful to be convicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering
  - DINKDINK 9y ago
    Uber: Hey, we're really sorry that things didn't work out but "here's some equity for the time that you worked here" oh and by the way here's the estimated value of that equity if we win the lawsuit or don't win the law suit.
    - potatolicious 9y ago
      Despite popular belief, the judiciary is in fact not a pack of nincompoops that can be trivially bypassed by a nudge and a wink... Nor is the judiciary powerless against attempts to exploit loopholes, if they indeed exist. "Muahahaha! The law is powerless against me and I can violate it with impunity by judicious word choice" is largely a fantasy.

AngelloPozo 9y ago

Uber followed through on their public warning. Doesn't look good I must say.

openmosix 9y ago

Interesting. The situation between Uber and Levendowski always reminded me of the prisoner dilemma. If one bails on the other, might the other starts talking about what really happened? I think that staying together would have been the best course of action for Uber. Very interesting to see how this will develop.

untog 9y ago
If you talk about what happened it doesn't magically mean all the punishment falls on the other side. If Levendowski admits to breaking the law he'll be punished, no matter if he is or isn't friends with Uber at the time.
- openmosix 9y ago
  Depends. If the story is how Waymo pictured it (the entire acquisition was an orchestrated plan with Uber to take IPs out of Google), if I were Levandowski I'd be reaching out to Waymo and propose a deal. I'll give you information to crucify Uber but you let me go. I guess Waymo is after Uber more than a single engineer.
  - hluska 9y ago
    The only issue is Levandowski could still face criminal charges and, under the circumstances can he trust Waymo not to take every drop of that information and hand it over to the most proximate prosecutor?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mulletbum 9y ago
Only if Uber knew they had done something wrong. If not, bailing on him now just places the blame squarely on him.
sjg007 9y ago
This will probably be a case study eventually.

tmh79 9y ago

OK: Here is some context for those who aren't current on the case. One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required This is one part of a number of things that came out of preliminary injunction hearings, other parts are (1) the breadth of the case is much smaller than as originally filed, its now about trade secrets, not about patent infringement (2) Waymo is allowed a bit more indepth "discover" to see if they can find evidence of their tech in ubers documents or in ubers hardware itself. Legally, there is no inference that can be drawn from this to imply uber is guilty, they have willfully carried out a court order. Uber still has a self driving car program, that is staffed by a few hundred engineers. The case against levandowski has been referred to a federal prosecutor to review the possiblity of criminal charges against levandowski, if I was his lawyer and he was in this position, I would likely refer him to "plead the fifth" regardless of his guilt. The case is most definitely still going to trial

sillysaurus3 9y ago
One result of the injunction (all of the hearings up until now) was that uber needs to use all of its power to compel levandowski to testify, the extreme limit of which is firing him. Uber followed through as was legally required How does firing him equate to pressuring him to testify?
- empath75 9y ago
  "If you don't testify or produce documents, we're going to fire you." "I still refuse to testify." "Alright, you're fired." That's all they can do.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- jacquesm 9y ago
  What else would you have them do? Jail him? Torture him? The company has limited tools at its disposal the ultimate one being to fire the person.

ProfessorLayton 9y ago

Interesting. Could Levandowski throw Uber under the bus without incriminating himself? Additionally, I wonder if Uber has clawback agreements in place for their Otto acquisition.

kognate 9y ago
Probably not. The biggest hurdle here is that it was Levandowski who took the documents on his own initiative. Even if he'd been asked by someone high up at Uber to steal the information he might escape criminal prosecution but he'd never keep his money.

Kiro 9y ago

What if Uber is actually innocent? I've always just assumed they are guilty and planned this all along.

jacquesm 9y ago
> What if Uber is actually innocent? If an ex employee of a company making a competing product walked into my office with a large treasure trove of files I would not automatically assume that he had re-created those files in his spare time. Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising.
- tyingq 9y ago
  >Uber being 100% innocent would be highly surprising Should be fun when the due diligence docs come out, and we get Uber's view of how Otto went from a value of zero to $680M in 7 months, with only legitimate IP, 5 Trucks, and 90 employees.
  - mikekij 9y ago
    This. How is this not the main crux of the argument for Uber's being complicit in the IP theft?
    - hluska 9y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if Uber could argue: 1.) At the time of acquisition, Levandowski was one of the world's leading experts on self driving technology. 2.) As one of the world's leading experts, Levandowski was able to recruit an incredible team. 3.) Self driving technology could be worth trillions and, in Uber's particular case, it would remove one of their biggest cost centres, thus making their business instantly profitable.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        Assuming that roughly matches the due diligence documents.

philip1209 9y ago

Oh wow, I just noticed under the related stories that Travis's mother was killed and father was seriously injured in a boating accident this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/business/uber-chief-executive-mother-killed-boating-accident.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/business/uber-chief-execu...

randomf1fan 9y ago
That's really terrible news. My condolences to the Kalanick family in this difficult time. I hope his dad recovers soon. I'm going to call my mom today and tell her I love her.
ianamartin 9y ago
As much as I dislike Kalanick and Uber, this is terrible news, and I feel awful for him. I hope there are no people jaded enough to be happy about this. Losing a loved one goes beyond anything. Kalanick may be a dick and Uber may be legally and morally problematic, but at a human level, this just sucks. I hope he and his family can find some peace.

yeukhon 9y ago

I think no one will ever dare to hire Levandowski. His career is over. Maybe still too early to draw any conclusion, but I can't seem to have any counter potential excuse or reason to believe the self-driving programs weren't stolen. Why on earth would someone like him do that? Conceited arrogance? Now I don't understand taking the Fifth. If everyone takes the Fifth, how do you convict someone? Find evidences, and have the a grand jury find the person guilty?

xapata 9y ago
If your own testimony is the only available evidence against you, that'd be a weak case.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  But keep in mind that in civil cases like this one (unlike criminal cases), prosecutors and juries are allowed to draw "adverse inferences" from your silence and take it as evidence that you're guilty. Levandowski certainly isn't doing himself any favors by taking the 5th.
  - ivraatiems 9y ago
    If he is guilty, then he absolutely is; an adverse inference is nowhere near as serious as sworn testimony proving something happened.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - graysonk 9y ago
    Not a lawyer, but I thought that was only applicable if you suddenly plead the 5th after originally answering questions? From what I know he has always remained silent so I don't think they could do much with that.
    - URSpider94 9y ago

Overtonwindow 9y ago

This issue brings to mind the fight over Phillip Shoemaker at Apple. Self driving cars and the engineering behind it seems highly specialized. Will this case with Levandowski put pressure on engineers to stay put, a stronger, tacit non-compete and no-poaching rule?

ryandamm 9y ago
The nice thing about California is employers' concerns about the market, competition, and trade secrecy cannot take priority over an individual's right to work (with narrow exceptions for owners selling a business). To the extent it puts pressure on the companies -- perhaps. But it shouldn't hurt the employees themselves; on the contrary, perhaps it encourages the companies to keep engineers around by granting enticing equity packages with long-ish vesting schedules. Or you're right, and they'll just collude. Guess it could go either way...!
greglindahl 9y ago
I don't think it will affect any ethical engineer -- you know, the ones who destroy/delete confidential information when leaving a job.
linkregister 9y ago
California has a law limiting the effectiveness of non-compete agreements. Most of these jobs are in California. Perhaps the companies will lobby California lawmakers, but I doubt it would be successful.

ziszis 9y ago

Link to formal termination letter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/05/termination-letter.pdf https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/0... The termination letter indicates that the termination is for cause and may have implications on stock awards and other compensation: "Under the Stock Award and other agreements, you are entitled to 20 days to cure the events that give rise to this termination for Cause. This letter constitutes the “prior written notice” triggering the commencement of that 20day period."

United857 9y ago
IANAL but doesn't the letter's language ("that termination shall become effective 20 days from today") imply that he has 20 days to fix things, and that the termination is not a already done deal?
- jeeyoungk 9y ago
  I'm assuming that since he's a high-profile hire from an acquisition with a lot of vesting cycles attached to it, there are more required legal procedures including time window to amend things.
- mikeryan 9y ago
  "Cause" has meaning here. His days working for Uber are likely done but if he choose to rectify the issues stated in the letter then he might be able to get the terminated for "Cause" removed in which case he likely has some parachute clauses and payouts which can come into effect.
  - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
    Assuming Uber didn't want to fire him, and he rectifies the issues, then I don't believe there is anything preventing them from hiring him back. Actually there's nothing preventing them from hiring him back after the court case concludes, is there? IANAL.

stevebmark 9y ago

This is incredible. It looks like Uber is trying to pin this on him. I really hope it's true (and proven in court) that Uber encouraged him to steal secrets and start a company with the intention of Uber buying his half-assed startup. Because this firing totally fits the bill of Uber executives' public behavior, trying to shift the blame and throw people under the bus.

aetherson 9y ago
Uber isn't trying to pin thinks on Levandowski. They've actually been very courteous of him. The deal is: Levandowski pled the 5th and refused to produce a lot of documents that he was ordered to by the court. Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted (EDIT: dragonwriter points out that non-natural persons can plead the 5th. For various reasons, Uber isn't asserting 5th Amendment protections, and the details of why it isn't aren't wildly important here. I regret the error). Judge Alsup basically said, "You can't, like, inherit Levandowski's protections. You have to do everything possible to you in order to produce the documents that I've ordered you to produce. That means getting your employee to cooperate, or firing him." Uber asked Levandowksi to cooperate, and then when he didn't, they fired him. It was very much on Alsup's order.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Uber can't plead the 5th as it's not a natural person and it isn't be criminally prosecuted. Uber can plead the fifth [EDIT: no, it can't, see note at end] (it applies not just to natural persons, and corporations are subject to criminal process as well), but a party to a civil suit pleading the fifth can have that held against them, and if you take the fifth you can't do it selectively, any issue you take the fifth on you can't offer any testimony relating to. Taking the Fifth would be essentially waiving a defense on key points, and civil suits have a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so it would be fairly easy for Waymo to prove points against Uber where Uber essentially surrendered the ability to defend. EDIT: while the discussion of the effects of taking the Fifth in a civil case of this type are something I stand behind, the basic premise (that Uber could take the Fifth) is incorrect; the self-incrimination protection of the Fifth is an exceptional provision of the Bill of Rights in that it has been held to apply only to individuals, not corporations and other similar entities, under the "collective entity rule."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mikekij 9y ago

I would think Google's argument would only need to be "Uber spent $600M on a 9-month old company". That alone is a huge red-flag, no?

femto113 9y ago
This--plus there is some evidence that suggests Uber already negotiated to acquire Otto before it even came into existence.
joering2 9y ago
Google spent $1600M on a 18-months old company. Youtube starts in April 2005. Is bought by Google October 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube
- femto113 9y ago
  By that point "the site delivered an average of 100 million video views per day". Otto never delivered anything.
hm8 9y ago
This is another. Not sure if raising money in itself is a red flag. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/argo-ai#/entity https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/argo-ai#/entity

sfdghjkl2345678 9y ago

It's ON!!!!

joering2 9y ago

... comes as a result of his involvement in a legal battle between Uber and Waymo, the self-driving technology unit spun out of Google last year. Honest question - can they do that to him, or anyone else, before guilt is actually proven? What if the result is that nothing is found?? Can he counter-sue for wrongful termination?? Next time if you are company X and are angry your employee Y left for company Z, just sue Z in hopes they will let Y go.

chc 9y ago
They're firing him because they ordered him to cooperate with the investigation and he refused to do so, not for being guilty of a crime.

dafty4 9y ago

Are there truly that many Lidar-related trade "secrets" that Google knows about that suppliers and competitors at Velodyne, SPIE, ex-military researcers, etc. don't already? If Levandowski is targeted by federal prosecutors, can he argue inevitable discovery based on existing public domain principles and papers (textbooks, etc.)? I find it hard to believe that Google is the only innovator in Lidar thus far. It just seems like they are because it's now cool.

asr 9y ago
The Preliminary Injunction order from earlier this month basically agreed with you and said many of Waymo's trade secret claims are probably overbroad and won't hold up. But, the court said, it looks very much like Levandowski did take Waymo's files and use them at Uber, and the files "likely contain at least some trade secrets." So, basically, even if these are weak trade secrets claims and there aren't that many secrets, Uber and Levandowski have looked so bad on the question of whether they stole them that the Court was willing to say "fire him or else." Here is that order if you're interested: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244394038&z=018a5648 https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=244394038... See pages 11-17.

7ero 9y ago

At this point, I think this is a move to slow Uber's entry into the market, there is probably irrevocable damage because I would imagine it's hard to prevent their IP from being used. I wonder how things would have played out if Otto was never acquired.

Arizhel 9y ago

>So yeah, it happens; it's just a spectacularly bad idea for the police to do it. If they hadn't declined to file charges, my friend and another murder victim would probably still be alive today Sorry about your friend, but why is it a "spectacularly bad idea" for police to do so? What alternative do they have? If the sole victim is unwilling to cooperate with the investigation and subsequent trial, their chances of actually succeeding in imprisoning that scumbag are approximately zero. If you want to blame someone, go find the stupid, selfish woman who wanted to "let it drop" 5 years ago. Remember that old saying about evil flourishing because good people do nothing.

xhedley 9y ago
Arizhel, I have never been subjected to rape and attempted strangulation myself. But someone that I know well has. In the country that I live in, the justice system rightly requires that guilt in criminal cases is proved "beyond reasonable doubt". In court, the accused has every reason to allege that the alleged victim was "up for it" and "consenting" and "enjoyed it". The victim who "lets it drop" in these circumstances may be selfish - but they aren't stupid when they weigh the cost to themselves of an adversarial court case against the gain to themselves of a rape conviction. In an ideal world all women would feel strong enough to testify in a rape case but maybe this isn't an ideal world. Testifying that someone raped you isn't like testifying that someone stole your wallet. It's way more intimate and personal and dangerous. To the thread starter - I am so sorry that your friend was raped and killed. Please look after yourself and talk to someone about how you are feeling.
- Arizhel 9y ago
  OK, but that still doesn't explain why it's a "spectacularly bad idea" for police/DA to not bother prosecuting in cases like this. What exactly are they supposed to do when they don't have a cooperative victim? Why is it not-stupid for the victim to avoid the costs of an adversarial court case, but it's stupid for the DA to avoid a case that he or she is guaranteed to lose?
  - Arizhel 9y ago

rmellow 9y ago

Not mentioned in the article: Uber is investing in a self-driving research unit in Toronto, Canada led by Raquel Urtasun [1]. Seems like a move to dodge all this Waymo brouhaha and benefit from Toronto's deep learning scene. [1] https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/uber-hires-raquel-urtasun-to-lead-a-new-atg-self-driving-unit-in-toronto/amp/ https://www.techcrunch.com/2017/05/08/uber-hires-raquel-urta...

xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
Or they decided to hire a researcher and her small team of grad students to feed them research before publishing.
- rmellow 9y ago
  There are quite a few positions open in Toronto[1], which leads me to believe that actual development of self-driving is happening in the city. The current state of immigration in the US has been reported to drive developments in deep learning to Canada[2]. [1] https://careers-uber.icims.com/jobs/search?ss=1&searchCategory=818705&searchLocation=12955-12964-Toronto https://careers-uber.icims.com/jobs/search?ss=1&searchCatego... [2] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-new-ai-hub-in-canada-is-welcoming-the-scientists-trump-is-pushing-away https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-new-ai-hub-in-c...

ChuckMcM 9y ago

Not exactly unexpected given the court order earlier, interesting bit about how he has 20 days to decide if he wants to rectify the 'cause'. Presumably that would mean admitting stuff that he previously felt would incriminate himself so doing so would put him into more jeopardy on some axis. This has got to be painful for all the parties involved, I can only hope that people who are watching are thinking to themselves "hmm, seems like some bad choices." And whether or not they are really bad or just being painted that way, it gives you a sense of how everything will be used to craft a narrative around the sequence of events that serves the purposes of the people doing the crafting, not necessarily the participants about whom the narrative speaks. Having experienced personally the effects of bad actors trying to create a narrative that differed markedly from 'reality' in order to protect their own vulnerability I know how pulling only certain "facts" out of the history can tell a different story than the truth.

bfstein 9y ago
The 20 days bit is standard in termination for cause. You need to give the employee a chance to cure the damages before you terminate them for cause.

ianamartin 9y ago

If he stays out of jail re: the criminal prosecution, the hype will die down, people will forget about it, the internet outrage machine will move on, and he'll do something else and be fine.

accountyaccount 9y ago

probably a good move

throwaway13234 9y ago

Statement from Levandowski's lawyers: https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/05/19/levandowski-waymo-fifth.pd... "The bite of the Court’s May 11, 2017 Preliminary Injunction Order, as it relates to nonparty Anthony Levandowski, can be summarized quite simply: 'Waive your Fifth Amendment rights... or I will have you fired. The choice is yours, Mr. Levandowski.' But, even when framed as a “choice,” this command runs counter to nearly a half century of United States Supreme Court precedent, beginning with Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment forbids a government entity from threatening an individual with the choice “between self-incrimination and job forfeiture.” Id. at 497, 500. As the Supreme Court observed in Garrity, the “option to lose [one’s] means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent.” Id. at 497. As the Supreme Court made clear, whenever a state actor imposes this choice between “the rock and the whirlpool,” it engages in unlawful constitutional compulsion, which, among other things, operates to immunize any resulting testimonial statements." Isn't anyone else here bothered by the due process implications of Judge Alsup's demand to force Levandowski to give up a Constitutional right or be fired? I'm generally a fan of Alsup, but this sets terrible precedence.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
austenallred 9y ago
As easy as it is to hate on Uber, this is indeed troubling. Odd that you can tie such things to Constitutional rights.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  The thing to note here, is that as far as Alsup is concerned, Levandowski isn't a party to the case. There's Uber and Waymo. Uber has been instructed to get information for Waymo as part of a civil proceeding in which Levandowski is not a party. To do anything less than their fullest to compel Levandowski to give that information to Waymo would make Uber liable. Its worth remembering that, at this point, this is only a civil suit, so among other things, silence can actually be used against you (adverse interference).

Everhusk 9y ago

It's sad to see Uber destroy a talented engineer's credibility like this... Moment of silence for the man who once went out and built a self driving motorcycle on his own [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CYGT97i8qU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CYGT97i8qU

scott_karana 9y ago
I think he ruined his own credibility via mass theft of his precious employer's files. His current employer is irrelevant. Plus, "on his own" is not correct. Team Blue 2005 had nine members: http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/TechPapers/BlueTeam.pdf http://archive.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/TechPapers/BlueTea...

walshemj 9y ago

Isn't anyone concerned that you can be fired for excising your rights under the constitution?

wdb 9y ago

What stops Uber from hiring him again as a contractor?