3 ms·

So to take a kind of backwards view here, are there any consequences for Waymo if they are incorrect in this filing? Or is this the part of legal wrangling wher

by csours 9y ago

So to take a kind of backwards view here, are there any consequences for Waymo if they are incorrect in this filing? Or is this the part of legal wrangling where you throw mud and see what sticks? To be sure, there's a great deal of smoke around Levandowski and the Otto acquisition, and probably some fire as well.

rayiner 9y ago
There are consequences, but they're more related to the adequacy of Google's basis for making the assertion rather than whether it is ultimately correct or incorrect. Accuracy of representations in filings in federal court is governed by Rule 11: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11. Lawyers and their clients can be (and regularly are) sanctioned for violating the rule. The rule enumerates various requirements, but the gist of it is that you have to have a good faith basis for any legal argument or factual assertion you put in a filing. Viewed retrospectively, if you're wrong and the other side brings a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, you had better be able to explain that you acted in good faith by conducting a reasonable investigation and finding information backing up your assertion. With regards to allegations like the ones here, the backup might be, e.g. emails that tend to suggest Kalanick knew about the misappropriated IP, or even an interview with a witness who said Kalanick knew. After further discovery that could turn out to be wrong--the emails might not reveal the full context, or the witness misinterpreted the situation, or, more likely, there is simply a greater volume of emails or testimony suggesting that he did not know. That's fine under Rule 11, what matters is that there was some factual basis to begin with.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I understand you are a lawyer, but "After further discovery that could turn out to be wrong ... what matters is that there was some factual basis to begin with." does sound, to the lay person, a lot like throwing mud and seeing what sticks.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I guess it depends on how you define "throwing mud and seeing what sticks." To me, that implies a lack of investigation and recklessness as to the truth. "Your honor, the Defendant cheats on his wife! What's my basis for that allegation? I mean, it could be true, so let's depose him and find out!" That will get you sanctioned. In contrast: "Your honor, the Defendant cheats on his wife! We have a hotel maid that saw a woman enter his hotel room while he was traveling on business and leave the next morning." That's a plausible allegation that may or may not turn out to be true, depending on other facts.

by csours 9y ago

rayiner 9y ago

There are consequences, but they're more related to the adequacy of Google's basis for making the assertion rather than whether it is ultimately correct or incorrect. Accuracy of representations in filings in federal court is governed by Rule 11: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11. Lawyers and their clients can be (and regularly are) sanctioned for violating the rule. The rule enumerates various requirements, but the gist of it is that you have to have a good faith basis for any legal argument or factual assertion you put in a filing. Viewed retrospectively, if you're wrong and the other side brings a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, you had better be able to explain that you acted in good faith by conducting a reasonable investigation and finding information backing up your assertion. With regards to allegations like the ones here, the backup might be, e.g. emails that tend to suggest Kalanick knew about the misappropriated IP, or even an interview with a witness who said Kalanick knew. After further discovery that could turn out to be wrong--the emails might not reveal the full context, or the witness misinterpreted the situation, or, more likely, there is simply a greater volume of emails or testimony suggesting that he did not know. That's fine under Rule 11, what matters is that there was some factual basis to begin with.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
I understand you are a lawyer, but "After further discovery that could turn out to be wrong ... what matters is that there was some factual basis to begin with." does sound, to the lay person, a lot like throwing mud and seeing what sticks.
- rayiner 9y ago
  I guess it depends on how you define "throwing mud and seeing what sticks." To me, that implies a lack of investigation and recklessness as to the truth. "Your honor, the Defendant cheats on his wife! What's my basis for that allegation? I mean, it could be true, so let's depose him and find out!" That will get you sanctioned. In contrast: "Your honor, the Defendant cheats on his wife! We have a hotel maid that saw a woman enter his hotel room while he was traveling on business and leave the next morning." That's a plausible allegation that may or may not turn out to be true, depending on other facts.