7 ms·

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 des

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.
- gvb 9y ago
  Waymo says they have proof of #1 and #2. We found that six weeks before his resignation this former employee, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems, including designs of Waymo’s LiDAR and circuit board. To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints. Ref: https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and-uber-86f4f98902a1#.3vm7k8r6n https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-...
  - kbenson 9y ago
    After reading the transcript of the testimony on what Google actually knows about (1), it's actually less convincing in my opinion than Google's wording makes it sound (which is to be expected from lawyers making a case). I still believe Levandowski likely took trade secrets, but it's much less compelling when you read the details. There's a link to it in this HN comment[1], and I reply with what I think is a fair summary. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591
    - woodandsteel 9y ago
      Part of the problem for Uber is that, as is standard in acquisitions, Uber commissioned a due diligence report to try to determine the odds there was stolen IP involved when they were thinking of buying Levandowski's company. Now that ought to be evidence that Uber could use in its defense. Instead, Uber is going to extrordinary lengths to try to keep it out of the trial.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        Sure. I'm not coming in on the side of Uber, I'm just calling into question the idea of taking Google's initial allegations, and the assumptions that are often made from them, as evidence instead of the actual filing which paints the story slightly differently. Personally, I suspect we'll eventually fine out that Levandoswki - and others, check the filing - did steal trade secrets.
georgespencer 9y ago
> 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. Yes. > Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? It may well be, at trial, in court. > Am I remembering or interpreting the story incorrectly? No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true to the extent required for a civil case.
- vkou 9y ago
  Since it's a civil case, won't it only have to be demostrated to be more likely then not? I thought 'beyond reasonable doubt' was only the bar for criminal cases.
  - georgespencer 9y ago
    Yes my bad!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Pyxl101 9y ago
  > No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence required in a criminal case. The standard of evidence required in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence". This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than untrue (ie >50% chance). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponderance_of_the_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponde...
  - georgespencer 9y ago
    Oh weird I thought this was a criminal case. Thanks!
vadym909 9y ago
That vendor's email is probably the most expensive email mistake ever made. I wonder if he sent it to the old Levandowsky (Google) email that his email system probably autopopulated?
- blackguardx 9y ago
  It's very common for hardware vendors and hardware teams to have extremely long email chains where they copy everyone involved for the length of the project. I imagine that the vendor copied the old Google colleagues by mistake. Misdirected emails happen. I was even recently called by a vendor on my cell phone (side effect of open offices: no office phone) for an old company that wanted to talk about the sensors they were using for a new project. The vendor still thought I worked there even two years after leaving.
  - arkitaip 9y ago
    It's crazy how common this is in even very sensitive cases. There should be a rule based system in place that makes it troublesome to email people not associated to a certain project.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      A mailing list?
    - will4274 9y ago
      You mean this feature of Outlook? https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/microsoft_press/2013/04/29/from-the-mvps-data-loss-prevention-with-office-365-and-exchange-online/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/microsoft_press/2013/04/29/...
NicoJuicy 9y ago
I remember the vendor contacting Google ( Waymo), because Uber has similar designs. An email to Uber was send to a colleague at Google, when he was still employed there
_pmf_ 9y ago
> Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? It's doubtful whether this will be even admitted as evidence.

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.
gvb 9y ago
Waymo says they have proof of #1 and #2. We found that six weeks before his resignation this former employee, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems, including designs of Waymo’s LiDAR and circuit board. To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints. Ref: https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and-uber-86f4f98902a1#.3vm7k8r6n https://medium.com/waymo/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-...
- kbenson 9y ago
  After reading the transcript of the testimony on what Google actually knows about (1), it's actually less convincing in my opinion than Google's wording makes it sound (which is to be expected from lawyers making a case). I still believe Levandowski likely took trade secrets, but it's much less compelling when you read the details. There's a link to it in this HN comment[1], and I reply with what I think is a fair summary. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261591
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    Part of the problem for Uber is that, as is standard in acquisitions, Uber commissioned a due diligence report to try to determine the odds there was stolen IP involved when they were thinking of buying Levandowski's company. Now that ought to be evidence that Uber could use in its defense. Instead, Uber is going to extrordinary lengths to try to keep it out of the trial.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Sure. I'm not coming in on the side of Uber, I'm just calling into question the idea of taking Google's initial allegations, and the assumptions that are often made from them, as evidence instead of the actual filing which paints the story slightly differently. Personally, I suspect we'll eventually fine out that Levandoswki - and others, check the filing - did steal trade secrets.

georgespencer 9y ago

> 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. Yes. > Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? It may well be, at trial, in court. > Am I remembering or interpreting the story incorrectly? No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true to the extent required for a civil case.

vkou 9y ago
Since it's a civil case, won't it only have to be demostrated to be more likely then not? I thought 'beyond reasonable doubt' was only the bar for criminal cases.
- georgespencer 9y ago
  Yes my bad!
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Pyxl101 9y ago
> No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence required in a criminal case. The standard of evidence required in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence". This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than untrue (ie >50% chance). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponderance_of_the_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponde...
- georgespencer 9y ago
  Oh weird I thought this was a criminal case. Thanks!

vadym909 9y ago

That vendor's email is probably the most expensive email mistake ever made. I wonder if he sent it to the old Levandowsky (Google) email that his email system probably autopopulated?

blackguardx 9y ago
It's very common for hardware vendors and hardware teams to have extremely long email chains where they copy everyone involved for the length of the project. I imagine that the vendor copied the old Google colleagues by mistake. Misdirected emails happen. I was even recently called by a vendor on my cell phone (side effect of open offices: no office phone) for an old company that wanted to talk about the sensors they were using for a new project. The vendor still thought I worked there even two years after leaving.
- arkitaip 9y ago
  It's crazy how common this is in even very sensitive cases. There should be a rule based system in place that makes it troublesome to email people not associated to a certain project.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    A mailing list?
  - will4274 9y ago
    You mean this feature of Outlook? https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/microsoft_press/2013/04/29/from-the-mvps-data-loss-prevention-with-office-365-and-exchange-online/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/microsoft_press/2013/04/29/...

NicoJuicy 9y ago

I remember the vendor contacting Google ( Waymo), because Uber has similar designs. An email to Uber was send to a colleague at Google, when he was still employed there

_pmf_ 9y ago

> Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? It's doubtful whether this will be even admitted as evidence.