4 ms·

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 th

by 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.
  - dsp1234 9y ago
    More specifically, the "specialized software" was TortoiseSVN, and the "downloaded over 14,000 ... downloaded 9.7 GB" was an SVN checkout. An SVN client being used to access an SVN repository is hardly unusual, certainly not in the way insinuated by the wording presented.
    - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
      If I recall, Google/Waymo claimed in their filing that he had never used the Subversion repository in question from that laptop in the course of his employment, until that moment. They further claim he actually searched MoMA for how to access it as well as how to do end-to-end setup. He then left not long after that checkout. That is unusual, if true.

by tmh79 9y ago

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.
- dsp1234 9y ago
  More specifically, the "specialized software" was TortoiseSVN, and the "downloaded over 14,000 ... downloaded 9.7 GB" was an SVN checkout. An SVN client being used to access an SVN repository is hardly unusual, certainly not in the way insinuated by the wording presented.
  - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
    If I recall, Google/Waymo claimed in their filing that he had never used the Subversion repository in question from that laptop in the course of his employment, until that moment. They further claim he actually searched MoMA for how to access it as well as how to do end-to-end setup. He then left not long after that checkout. That is unusual, if true.