3 ms·
I read the report. It certainly demonstrates that Levandowski retained Google data (but we knew that already), that Levandowski recruited to form Otto before h
by aetherson 9y ago
I read the report. It certainly demonstrates that Levandowski retained Google data (but we knew that already), that Levandowski recruited to form Otto before he left Google (but we knew that already), that Uber always planned to buy Otto, dating back to before Levandowski left Google (if we didn't know that, we had pretty strong suspicions), and that Levandowski is kind of a scuzzball (but again, we knew that).
But it doesn't appear to offer any good evidence that Google's trade secrets made it to Uber. Which is what actual "damning evidence" would be.
- mabbo 9y agoIt's not about whether they succeeded, it's about whether they tried. And it seems they did indeed try.
- aetherson 9y agoLevandowski and the Otto guys aren't on trial. The question is whether Uber received trade secrets, not on whether or not Levandowski took trade secrets away from Google (which, again, does not seem to be in doubt). I don't see anything in the report which provides even strong suggestions that Uber received material from Google. I mean, I don't think that the report rules it out, either. But at most, it kind of hints that Levandowski was the kind of guy who might have tried to get the data over to Uber. Which we basically already knew. That's certainly not damning evidence. I bet that Uber's lawyers will point to some of the clown car antics documented in this report and say, "Come on, if these guys actually had moved trade secrets over to Uber, obviously they would have left material evidence that they did so. Clearly they were not great at covering up their actions."