3 ms·

Have we established that Uber knew about the files?

jacquesm 9y ago
If you invest in / buy a company for its IP then you normally - especially when the field is 'hot' and the IP is voluminous and created in record time - do some research to verify the origin of the IP is in fact what the company says it is. If you forgo such a check then you open yourself up to two potential problems: - if the IP ends up being stolen then you may not have recourse against the person that sold it to you - if the IP ends up being stolen you might end up being liable yourself because you did not do the minimum verification required to ascertain that the seller indeed had the rights to sell That changes the game from 'we've been had' to 'we were willing participants' and that's a very dumb position to be in.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  While that's all true, it seems entirely unrelated. If Levandowski stole "a large treasure trove of files" but then drew information judiciously from those files in creating Otto's IP, Uber might not have been much able to pick that apart - and in particular, your characterization would be grossly misleading.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    There would still be a discrepancy in that they would be moving much faster than they would have if they started from scratch. The difference is usually very easy to tell, you'd have to be extremely good at covering your tracks if you wanted to start from another code base and you copy bit-by-bit. Copying gives a completely different pattern than writing does.
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      There are ways of using information other than copy-pasting it in. A reference here and there when you get stuck, reading ahead to avoid dead-ends. They would also be moving much faster if they were just very good, and Google was already paying this guy on the understanding that he was the best. Picking that apart could be difficult-to-impossible. Or maybe Uber's just complicit. But you're introducing facts not in evidence based on your assumptions about how this went down.

If you invest in / buy a company for its IP then you normally - especially when the field is 'hot' and the IP is voluminous and created in record time - do some research to verify the origin of the IP is in fact what the company says it is. If you forgo such a check then you open yourself up to two potential problems: - if the IP ends up being stolen then you may not have recourse against the person that sold it to you - if the IP ends up being stolen you might end up being liable yourself because you did not do the minimum verification required to ascertain that the seller indeed had the rights to sell That changes the game from 'we've been had' to 'we were willing participants' and that's a very dumb position to be in.

dllthomas 9y ago
While that's all true, it seems entirely unrelated. If Levandowski stole "a large treasure trove of files" but then drew information judiciously from those files in creating Otto's IP, Uber might not have been much able to pick that apart - and in particular, your characterization would be grossly misleading.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  There would still be a discrepancy in that they would be moving much faster than they would have if they started from scratch. The difference is usually very easy to tell, you'd have to be extremely good at covering your tracks if you wanted to start from another code base and you copy bit-by-bit. Copying gives a completely different pattern than writing does.
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    There are ways of using information other than copy-pasting it in. A reference here and there when you get stuck, reading ahead to avoid dead-ends. They would also be moving much faster if they were just very good, and Google was already paying this guy on the understanding that he was the best. Picking that apart could be difficult-to-impossible. Or maybe Uber's just complicit. But you're introducing facts not in evidence based on your assumptions about how this went down.