4 ms·
This is perhaps the most important claim made by Waymo since the initial filing. Waymo had already built up a preponderance of evidence that Levandowski knowing
by kcorbitt 9y ago
This is perhaps the most important claim made by Waymo since the initial filing. Waymo had already built up a preponderance of evidence that Levandowski knowingly and intentionally stole their information. There's no way he's dancing out of that at this point. But up until now, they haven't provided any evidence or, I believe, made the claim that Uber knew what was up, which puts them in the awkward position of suing someone (Uber) who may have had nothing to do with Levandowski's crime. There was lots of innuendo (Travis Kalanick took many long walks at night with Levandowski, with the discussions totally undocumented) but no smoking gun. However, if they can demonstrate to a jury that Uber execs definitely knew what Levandowski did and ignored it, that's the sort of thing that changes this lawsuit from an expensive distraction into an existential threat to Uber's self-driving car business.
- enraged_camel 9y ago>>However, if they can demonstrate to a jury that Uber execs definitely knew what Levandowski did and ignored it Since this is a jury trial, they only need to demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt, no?
- geoelectric 9y agoReasonable doubt is the criminal law standard, and is relatively hard to achieve since any credible theory by the defense can undermine it. This is a civil lawsuit, so probably goes to preponderance of evidence. That's a lot easier--the plaintiff only has to prove it's more likely than not that the defendant was liable. Jury or not doesn't really come into it, except that formal criminal trials (above an infraction, at least) always involve a jury.