6 ms·

> At this point what has he got to lose? All of his money and perhaps his freedom. If he essentially sold Google property to Uber he could be on the hook to ha

by CPLX 9y ago

> At this point what has he got to lose? All of his money and perhaps his freedom. If he essentially sold Google property to Uber he could be on the hook to hand over all the money he made from doing it plus punitive damages, and some of the conduct that's been alleged against him could even rise to the level of criminal charges. He's taking the 5th here for a reason. He stands to lose, literally, everything.

JKCalhoun 9y ago
If he has done what he has alleged to have done, he deserves to lose everything.
stouset 9y ago
He's taking the 5th here for a reason, and that reason is that it is the advice that literally any lawyer will give you regardless of your guilt innocence.
- jbigelow76 9y ago
  He (most likely) forfeited his as of yet unvested $250 million in Uber stock he received as part of the acquisition. I suppose some innocent people would walk from $250 million on the advice of their lawyer, but not many.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Depending on how much he currently has wealth-wise, his reputation and credibility here might be worth much more than that in the long run. He's still a bright engineer who could go on to do things in the self-driving car space. His expertise and exposure to the most cutting-edge IP is worth quite a bit. The less damage he gets out of this legally and the less dirt thrown on his name the more he will be able to turn that into real long term monetary value. Not to mention the social costs. If I was him I'd also being doing as much as possible to minimize the negative outcome of these legal proceedings for all who were involved with him. I'd rather have, say, $20M plus a reasonable shot at making a lot of money in the future with a marginal reputation than risk my name being run through the dirt for a chance at $250M. Many smart people who had a shaky past have gone on to be successful. Talent/having the right skillset at the right time seems to trump (no pun intended) bad press ... in America especially.
    - jbigelow76 9y ago
      If he is looking to protect his reputation, AND he is actually innocent, even at the expense of the money he should be wanting to tell his side of the story despite a lawyer telling him not to talk. My, admittedly cynical, take is much simpler, his lawyer sat him down and said something along the lines of: "screw the 250 million, keep your damn mouth shut if you want to stay out of prison".
      - stouset 9y ago
        He should want to, perhaps, but being innocent does not inherently make saying anything a good legal idea given a potential future criminal case.
        jbigelow76 9y ago
        Sure, people get railroaded by the justice system all to often. But more often than not those are usually unfortunate souls with little ability to defend themselves accused of crimes far more heinous than stealing trade secrets. For what Levandowski is accused of and how he is accused of doing it, there should be plenty of either incriminating or exculpatory evidence, if the parties involved want to divulge it. Google isn't some district attorney trying to look tough on crime for the voters, nobody outside of Google and Uber really care all that much about the case really care or which way it goes. Levandowski, by pleading the 5th has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion (yes, yes, shame on all of us) so he can't be clinging to whatever shreds of his reputation are left for future jobs. It's not impossible that he is innocent and his lawyer thinks the best strategy is to plead the 5th anyway, I just don't happen to buy it myself.
        CPLX 9y ago
        There's nothing shameful about making inferences from his behavior in this case. It's reasonable and proper to assume someone taking the 5th in a civil case has something to hide.
- CPLX 9y ago
  That's patent nonsense. It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that something very serious is going on. When people sue each other they don't get to remain silent, they're subject to depositions, discovery, being put on the stand, and having to explain themselves. Your comment applies to criminal matters, it's not comparable at all.
  - stouset 9y ago
    The current case between Waymo and Uber is a civil dispute, but there is absolutely the possibility here of criminal charges being filed against Levandowski. It's already been referred to a federal prosecutor.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    More: to take the 5th in a civil dispute that they aren't even a party to. That's extremely unusual - and in this case, it didn't fly.
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      Well, I mean, it did fly, in that he was not compelled (... directly?) by the court to testify. Which isn't to say it didn't have other consequences...
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        But Levandowski tried to get the court to not allow Waymo to discover who wrote the due diligence report. (Not just block Waymo from seeing the report - he tried to block Waymo from even learning who wrote it.) He did this by claiming the 5th. On a court case that he wasn't a party to. And the judge didn't buy it (rightly, IMHO).
        dllthomas 9y ago
        Ah, yeah.
tuna-piano 9y ago
I don't know much - but perhaps Google could make a deal with Levandowski that if he spills the beans on what Uber did, then Google won't go after him? Google obviously has much more to gain by suing Uber than suing a dude. If Google needs information, and Levandowski has that information, it would seem to be a good deal. But if there's also possible criminal proceedings, Levandowski would need to make a similar deal with the government too?
- law_of_the_hobo 9y ago
  I have to imagine that google also wants to set a precedent that they won't tolerate people stealing their trade secrets.
  - bllv7 9y ago
    Exactly, exhaust all reasonable efforts in a public manner to thwart this kind of behavior in the future.
- scarmig 9y ago
  Eh. Waymo definitely worries about Uber as a competitor, and in general many people have a distaste for Uber's culture and values. But there's still a pretty stark line between being a strategic competitor and being a scummy traitor who steals trade secrets and the labor of his coworkers. If it came down to a choice between shutting down Uber's self-driving car program and ruining Levandowski, I'm sure a lot of people would want to choose the latter, even though it's "irrational." Principles are important.
  - monochromatic 9y ago
    An individual, sure. But Google is too big to take the irrational vindictive option. I have to think they'd let Levandowski off the hook to shut down a competitor like this.
    - scarmig 9y ago
      I'd expect the same. But I'd bet a majority of the individual actors, including those making the final decision, would really like to be able to take that vindictive option.
lurker456 9y ago
Couldn't google offer him immunity of sorts in return for spilling the beans on Uber ? They dont need to claw back the money, it is pocket change to them. Restricting Uber from entering that market (on potentially near equal footing) is far more valuable.
- pythonaut_16 9y ago
  I don't think Google can offer immunity since any criminal charges would be brought by the state. Google could offer not to bring a civil suit against him, but it sounds like criminal charges are on the table and he's trying to avoid anything that might help that investigation.
- ooqr 9y ago
  In spite of what you see on TV, it's not up to a victim to decide whether or not to press criminal charges in the end. That's up to the attorney general usually.
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    Victims can choose not to cooperate with an investigation, which makes it much harder (and in some cases impossible) for a prosecution to proceed.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      If all the relevant material is "spilled" in a civil trial that the victim is pursuing against someone else, the victim's cooperation in the criminal case is less likely to be needed.
  - amyjess 9y ago
    Though police do often drop criminal charges if the victim is uncooperative. Here's a recent example: a friend of mine was raped and strangled to death last month. They caught her alleged murderer last week. When the media got a hold of it, they found out that he had been accused of rape and attempted strangulation five years ago, but police decided not to press charges because the victim wanted to let it drop. 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. Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/26/man-killed-woman-near-tcu-plano-woman-found-lake-ray-hubbard-police-say https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/26/man-killed-...
maverick_iceman 9y ago
Not if he gets a plea deal.

by CPLX 9y ago

JKCalhoun 9y ago

If he has done what he has alleged to have done, he deserves to lose everything.

stouset 9y ago

He's taking the 5th here for a reason, and that reason is that it is the advice that literally any lawyer will give you regardless of your guilt innocence.

jbigelow76 9y ago
He (most likely) forfeited his as of yet unvested $250 million in Uber stock he received as part of the acquisition. I suppose some innocent people would walk from $250 million on the advice of their lawyer, but not many.
- dmix 9y ago
  Depending on how much he currently has wealth-wise, his reputation and credibility here might be worth much more than that in the long run. He's still a bright engineer who could go on to do things in the self-driving car space. His expertise and exposure to the most cutting-edge IP is worth quite a bit. The less damage he gets out of this legally and the less dirt thrown on his name the more he will be able to turn that into real long term monetary value. Not to mention the social costs. If I was him I'd also being doing as much as possible to minimize the negative outcome of these legal proceedings for all who were involved with him. I'd rather have, say, $20M plus a reasonable shot at making a lot of money in the future with a marginal reputation than risk my name being run through the dirt for a chance at $250M. Many smart people who had a shaky past have gone on to be successful. Talent/having the right skillset at the right time seems to trump (no pun intended) bad press ... in America especially.
  - jbigelow76 9y ago
    If he is looking to protect his reputation, AND he is actually innocent, even at the expense of the money he should be wanting to tell his side of the story despite a lawyer telling him not to talk. My, admittedly cynical, take is much simpler, his lawyer sat him down and said something along the lines of: "screw the 250 million, keep your damn mouth shut if you want to stay out of prison".
    - stouset 9y ago
      He should want to, perhaps, but being innocent does not inherently make saying anything a good legal idea given a potential future criminal case.
      - jbigelow76 9y ago
        Sure, people get railroaded by the justice system all to often. But more often than not those are usually unfortunate souls with little ability to defend themselves accused of crimes far more heinous than stealing trade secrets. For what Levandowski is accused of and how he is accused of doing it, there should be plenty of either incriminating or exculpatory evidence, if the parties involved want to divulge it. Google isn't some district attorney trying to look tough on crime for the voters, nobody outside of Google and Uber really care all that much about the case really care or which way it goes. Levandowski, by pleading the 5th has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion (yes, yes, shame on all of us) so he can't be clinging to whatever shreds of his reputation are left for future jobs. It's not impossible that he is innocent and his lawyer thinks the best strategy is to plead the 5th anyway, I just don't happen to buy it myself.
        CPLX 9y ago
        There's nothing shameful about making inferences from his behavior in this case. It's reasonable and proper to assume someone taking the 5th in a civil case has something to hide.
CPLX 9y ago
That's patent nonsense. It is extremely uncommon for someone to take the 5th Amendment in a civil dispute. It, justifiably, raises a ton of red flags that something very serious is going on. When people sue each other they don't get to remain silent, they're subject to depositions, discovery, being put on the stand, and having to explain themselves. Your comment applies to criminal matters, it's not comparable at all.
- stouset 9y ago
  The current case between Waymo and Uber is a civil dispute, but there is absolutely the possibility here of criminal charges being filed against Levandowski. It's already been referred to a federal prosecutor.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  More: to take the 5th in a civil dispute that they aren't even a party to. That's extremely unusual - and in this case, it didn't fly.
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    Well, I mean, it did fly, in that he was not compelled (... directly?) by the court to testify. Which isn't to say it didn't have other consequences...
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      But Levandowski tried to get the court to not allow Waymo to discover who wrote the due diligence report. (Not just block Waymo from seeing the report - he tried to block Waymo from even learning who wrote it.) He did this by claiming the 5th. On a court case that he wasn't a party to. And the judge didn't buy it (rightly, IMHO).
      - dllthomas 9y ago
        Ah, yeah.

tuna-piano 9y ago

I don't know much - but perhaps Google could make a deal with Levandowski that if he spills the beans on what Uber did, then Google won't go after him? Google obviously has much more to gain by suing Uber than suing a dude. If Google needs information, and Levandowski has that information, it would seem to be a good deal. But if there's also possible criminal proceedings, Levandowski would need to make a similar deal with the government too?

law_of_the_hobo 9y ago
I have to imagine that google also wants to set a precedent that they won't tolerate people stealing their trade secrets.
- bllv7 9y ago
  Exactly, exhaust all reasonable efforts in a public manner to thwart this kind of behavior in the future.
scarmig 9y ago
Eh. Waymo definitely worries about Uber as a competitor, and in general many people have a distaste for Uber's culture and values. But there's still a pretty stark line between being a strategic competitor and being a scummy traitor who steals trade secrets and the labor of his coworkers. If it came down to a choice between shutting down Uber's self-driving car program and ruining Levandowski, I'm sure a lot of people would want to choose the latter, even though it's "irrational." Principles are important.
- monochromatic 9y ago
  An individual, sure. But Google is too big to take the irrational vindictive option. I have to think they'd let Levandowski off the hook to shut down a competitor like this.
  - scarmig 9y ago
    I'd expect the same. But I'd bet a majority of the individual actors, including those making the final decision, would really like to be able to take that vindictive option.

lurker456 9y ago

Couldn't google offer him immunity of sorts in return for spilling the beans on Uber ? They dont need to claw back the money, it is pocket change to them. Restricting Uber from entering that market (on potentially near equal footing) is far more valuable.

pythonaut_16 9y ago
I don't think Google can offer immunity since any criminal charges would be brought by the state. Google could offer not to bring a civil suit against him, but it sounds like criminal charges are on the table and he's trying to avoid anything that might help that investigation.
ooqr 9y ago
In spite of what you see on TV, it's not up to a victim to decide whether or not to press criminal charges in the end. That's up to the attorney general usually.
- gnicholas 9y ago
  Victims can choose not to cooperate with an investigation, which makes it much harder (and in some cases impossible) for a prosecution to proceed.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    If all the relevant material is "spilled" in a civil trial that the victim is pursuing against someone else, the victim's cooperation in the criminal case is less likely to be needed.
- amyjess 9y ago
  Though police do often drop criminal charges if the victim is uncooperative. Here's a recent example: a friend of mine was raped and strangled to death last month. They caught her alleged murderer last week. When the media got a hold of it, they found out that he had been accused of rape and attempted strangulation five years ago, but police decided not to press charges because the victim wanted to let it drop. 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. Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/26/man-killed-woman-near-tcu-plano-woman-found-lake-ray-hubbard-police-say https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/05/26/man-killed-...

maverick_iceman 9y ago

Not if he gets a plea deal.