9 ms·

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

by 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.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    Although for the sake of this discussion I agree with you, I could have a lot of fun making a list entitled, "things companies have done to people that are worse than firing them."
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - csours 9y ago
      And most of those things would also go on a list called "illegal things companies have done". Probably not a good idea to do something illegal in the middle of a lawsuit.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        There are many ways to make an employee's life worse without doing anything illegal. You tend to see them in dysfunctional companies.
        jacquesm 9y ago
        Yes, but usually not in the middle of lawsuits that spell 'doom' in large letters for the eventual loser(s). Uber has one and one chance only to get this behind them: to play by the book and to ask 'how high' when the judge tells them to jump. If they try anything funny they can expect the ROI of that to be substantial and negative.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        I agree, but the topic had diverged somewhat. OT, have you noticed an increase in superfluous downvoting? I'm not really complaining, just trying to figure out if I'm imagining it or if it's randomness doing its thing. Since HN has become so much bigger, I wonder if the mods could scale down the effect of downvoting. E.g. make it take two downvotes to make a comment appear at 0.
- MichaelBurge 9y ago
  A bit pedantic maybe: firing him doesn't pressure him, but threatening to fire him does. And it's not a threat if they don't eventually do it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
EnFinlay 9y ago
One thing I've been confused about: didn't this whole thing start when a vendor sent an e-mail to Google that was intended for Uber, and the contents of the design in that e-mail were sufficiently similar to Google's designs that Google started this process. Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? Am I remembering or interpreting that story incorrectly?
- tmh79 9y ago
  From what I understand, no that isn't similar enough on its own. I do not understand this part of the law "very deeply" but basically, there are a few things that google needs to prove [EDIT: NOTE BELOW](1) Levandowsky took information from google in some kind of physical way (files on a thumb drive, network transfer etc), it doesn't count if he just took the files by "memorizing" them in his brain (2) The information that was stole was secret, and highly beneficial to google/waymo (3) Levandowsky used the information that he stole to influence designs at uber, and specific uber designs can be traced back to information in those docs Proving these 3 things in a civil case is tricky, that is why waymo is trying to get a lot of "discovery" which is basically the ability for google/waymo to gather information on ubers corporate network. EDIT: (1) isn't true, but there are some strange edge cases around what stealing is, like, if levandowski is developing the state of the art stuff himself, and had been working on it since before waymo, what is his knowledge, and what is google/waymo's trade secrets?
  - ryandamm 9y ago
    Are you sure about (1)? I believe you can steal trade secrets even if you don't take them in an embodied form. It is true that you can't prevent someone from practicing their profession under the terms of California employment law (other states vary) -- but if you take reasonable steps to protect your trade secrets, the employees can be bound to honor that secrecy by not disclosing them to future employers. Source: I've been involved in a trade secret dispute (it was nonsense but annoying), and I am definitely not a lawyer.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    (1) is definitely not true. Memorized trade secrets can be misappropriated, if they were covered by an NDA. It just makes it harder to determine what is a trade secret if there isn't any concert documents or prototypes stolen.
downandout 9y ago
The court can't order a private entity to fire a private employee. They did this because they know they are probably going to lose this case, and it will be harder for Waymo to show that Uber's conduct was willful now that they have fired the main person involved. They want to be able to say "as soon as we were sure that some of this was stolen, we fired the person that did it". That may make a settlement more palatable to Waymo, or potentially decrease the damages awarded to them by a jury if it goes to trial.
- John23832 9y ago
  Don't all corporate punishments include the clause "up to and including termination"? If the court is compelling Uber to produce documents and/or information, and if those documents/information are in the hands on one employee, then the courts are compelling Uber to compel employee. That's Uber's card to play, "punishment, up to and including termination". The court didn't order Uber to fire Levandowski, it ask Uber to do everything within its power to produce documents/information.
- jonas21 9y ago
  The court can (and did) order Uber to: > immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court) by MAY 31 AT NOON [1] --- I believe that authority includes firing him if he did not comply. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3722249/Uber-Injunction-Ruling.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3722249/Uber-Inju...
  - tomjen3 9y ago
    How do you return a downloaded file without copying it?
    - thesimon 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Nelson69 9y ago
Questions... This is civil, so a preponderance of evidence is the burden here. Can he fight that at all without talking? Google has a ton of evidence that he 'downloaded' a lot of stuff. It's not a big jump to see Otto/Uber made a tremendous amount of progress pretty rapidly too. I'm not the judge but being an engineer, knowing other engineers, hearing Google's story about the data he took, seeing the dollar figures, it seems damning. What evidence is there to the other side if he won't explain things?
- objclxt 9y ago
  > This is civil, so a preponderance of evidence is the burden here. Can he fight that at all without talking? Pleading the fifth in a civil case can be used as a negative inference, so if you're not prepared to talk and the other side has evidence it's going to be an uphill struggle at best.
grigjd3 9y ago
Fair enough. I don't know what role Uber played in how they hired/acquired Levandowski. The lesson I take away is, don't be a liability to your employer - Though that was kind of my prior to begin with.

by tmh79 9y ago

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.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Although for the sake of this discussion I agree with you, I could have a lot of fun making a list entitled, "things companies have done to people that are worse than firing them."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - csours 9y ago
    And most of those things would also go on a list called "illegal things companies have done". Probably not a good idea to do something illegal in the middle of a lawsuit.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      There are many ways to make an employee's life worse without doing anything illegal. You tend to see them in dysfunctional companies.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Yes, but usually not in the middle of lawsuits that spell 'doom' in large letters for the eventual loser(s). Uber has one and one chance only to get this behind them: to play by the book and to ask 'how high' when the judge tells them to jump. If they try anything funny they can expect the ROI of that to be substantial and negative.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        I agree, but the topic had diverged somewhat. OT, have you noticed an increase in superfluous downvoting? I'm not really complaining, just trying to figure out if I'm imagining it or if it's randomness doing its thing. Since HN has become so much bigger, I wonder if the mods could scale down the effect of downvoting. E.g. make it take two downvotes to make a comment appear at 0.
MichaelBurge 9y ago
A bit pedantic maybe: firing him doesn't pressure him, but threatening to fire him does. And it's not a threat if they don't eventually do it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

EnFinlay 9y ago

One thing I've been confused about: didn't this whole thing start when a vendor sent an e-mail to Google that was intended for Uber, and the contents of the design in that e-mail were sufficiently similar to Google's designs that Google started this process. Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? Am I remembering or interpreting that story incorrectly?

tmh79 9y ago
From what I understand, no that isn't similar enough on its own. I do not understand this part of the law "very deeply" but basically, there are a few things that google needs to prove [EDIT: NOTE BELOW](1) Levandowsky took information from google in some kind of physical way (files on a thumb drive, network transfer etc), it doesn't count if he just took the files by "memorizing" them in his brain (2) The information that was stole was secret, and highly beneficial to google/waymo (3) Levandowsky used the information that he stole to influence designs at uber, and specific uber designs can be traced back to information in those docs Proving these 3 things in a civil case is tricky, that is why waymo is trying to get a lot of "discovery" which is basically the ability for google/waymo to gather information on ubers corporate network. EDIT: (1) isn't true, but there are some strange edge cases around what stealing is, like, if levandowski is developing the state of the art stuff himself, and had been working on it since before waymo, what is his knowledge, and what is google/waymo's trade secrets?
- ryandamm 9y ago
  Are you sure about (1)? I believe you can steal trade secrets even if you don't take them in an embodied form. It is true that you can't prevent someone from practicing their profession under the terms of California employment law (other states vary) -- but if you take reasonable steps to protect your trade secrets, the employees can be bound to honor that secrecy by not disclosing them to future employers. Source: I've been involved in a trade secret dispute (it was nonsense but annoying), and I am definitely not a lawyer.
- rhino369 9y ago
  (1) is definitely not true. Memorized trade secrets can be misappropriated, if they were covered by an NDA. It just makes it harder to determine what is a trade secret if there isn't any concert documents or prototypes stolen.

downandout 9y ago

The court can't order a private entity to fire a private employee. They did this because they know they are probably going to lose this case, and it will be harder for Waymo to show that Uber's conduct was willful now that they have fired the main person involved. They want to be able to say "as soon as we were sure that some of this was stolen, we fired the person that did it". That may make a settlement more palatable to Waymo, or potentially decrease the damages awarded to them by a jury if it goes to trial.

John23832 9y ago
Don't all corporate punishments include the clause "up to and including termination"? If the court is compelling Uber to produce documents and/or information, and if those documents/information are in the hands on one employee, then the courts are compelling Uber to compel employee. That's Uber's card to play, "punishment, up to and including termination". The court didn't order Uber to fire Levandowski, it ask Uber to do everything within its power to produce documents/information.
jonas21 9y ago
The court can (and did) order Uber to: > immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court) by MAY 31 AT NOON [1] --- I believe that authority includes firing him if he did not comply. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3722249/Uber-Injunction-Ruling.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3722249/Uber-Inju...
- tomjen3 9y ago
  How do you return a downloaded file without copying it?
  - thesimon 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Nelson69 9y ago

Questions... This is civil, so a preponderance of evidence is the burden here. Can he fight that at all without talking? Google has a ton of evidence that he 'downloaded' a lot of stuff. It's not a big jump to see Otto/Uber made a tremendous amount of progress pretty rapidly too. I'm not the judge but being an engineer, knowing other engineers, hearing Google's story about the data he took, seeing the dollar figures, it seems damning. What evidence is there to the other side if he won't explain things?

objclxt 9y ago
> This is civil, so a preponderance of evidence is the burden here. Can he fight that at all without talking? Pleading the fifth in a civil case can be used as a negative inference, so if you're not prepared to talk and the other side has evidence it's going to be an uphill struggle at best.

grigjd3 9y ago

Fair enough. I don't know what role Uber played in how they hired/acquired Levandowski. The lesson I take away is, don't be a liability to your employer - Though that was kind of my prior to begin with.