8 ms·

When the Judge Distrusts Your Lawyers

109 points by nkurz 9y ago

emilfihlman 9y ago
Could anyone explain why trade secrets are something you can sue over if no NDAs or similar have been signed?
- gpm 9y ago
  Why do you say no NDAs were signed? Levandowski signed a NDA. Here's a quote from one of Waymo's filings. > Waymo also requires all employees, contractors, consultants, vendors, and manufacturers to sign confidentiality agreements before any confidential or proprietary trade secret information is disclosed to them. Edit: I screwed up the original quotation and had one that said he signed a NDA with Uber instead of Waymo. I've replaced it with a similar quote (also from a Waymo filing) saying he signed a NDA with Waymo...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- lmkg 9y ago
  It's technically a type of intellectual property, like a patent. If no agreements are in place, it's still infringement.
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    Is that really true? Is there something I can read for a better understanding?
    - Digory 9y ago
      The feds adopted a Trade Secrets Act in 2016. [0] But many states have had versions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, starting in 1979.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_Trade_Secrets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_Trade_Secrets_Act [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      """ ...a trade secret is information that: * Is not generally known to the public; * Confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being publicly known, not just from the value of the information itself); * Is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. """ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret None of those criteria requires a contract or even an explicit label, but some sort of agreement is certainly easier to defend in court, if the need arises. Likewise, trademarks don't technically need to be registered or even claimed, but they do need to be enforced. If you open source your trade secrets or let stores sell generic "Cheerios", then you have a weak claim if you ever need to bring someone to court. Gratuitous: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.
      - jackvalentine 9y ago
        Interesting... superficially it looks like patent protection without having to disclose the patent and have it eventually expire. Is that an accurate statement?
        YawningAngel 9y ago
        You can independently reinvent it, you just can't steal it.
        jackvalentine 9y ago
        What happens if for example, unsolicited someone from the competition tells me the secret?
  - mc32 9y ago
    Does that mean someone can't independently come up with the formula for Coke (Pepsi or any knock off) because it's their intellectual property? [Or KFC's 13 spices] Or is Pepsi (and other knock offs) sufficiently different? Or something else working here.
    - newfoundglory 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure the fundamental difference between trade secrets and a patent is that if someone else comes up with it independently, or if you tell someone what it is, a patent protects you and a trade secret doesn't.
      - mc32 9y ago
        OP [lmkg] says it would still be infringement, if there is no agreement [x-licensing]. Not sure if that is true or not though.
        newfoundglory 9y ago
        They are probably assuming that you were given the information with the knowledge it was a trade secret even if you didn't sign anything specific about keeping it secret, not that you invented it separately.
        mc32 9y ago
        That was the missing piece. Thanks.
    - solomatov 9y ago
      IANAL, but for something to be a trade secret, it should be secret, economically useful and there should be some reasonable precautions preventing its disclosure.
    - nabla9 9y ago
      No. Inventing the same thing independently does not violate trade secret. Reverse engineering is lawful methods to discover trade secret. Industrial espionage is unlawful. Unlike registered intellectual property, trade secrets can be kept indefinitely.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Trade secrets are intellectual property which is ... property. So stealing trade secrets is stealing property which is theft. You can develop what is the equivalent of a trade secret. That is the risk and you have to make efforts to keep the secret a secret. But if an employee copies your trade secret that’s theft.
  - uiri 9y ago
    No, copyright infringement isn't theft even if it has been characterized as "stealing intellectual property". Intellectual property is a broad term without any real meaning. Copyrights don't have to be registered to have effect. Patents do. Trademarks can be either. If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it. If you don't defend against copyright or patent infringement, you can just wait. Patents last for 20 years. Copyright lasts for life of the author + 70 years, or 95 years (publication date)/120 years (creation date) for corporations. Registered trademarks are renewed every 10 years; potentially indefinitely (?) You can't make any assumptions about trade secret law based on other "types" of "intellectual property" without actually reading and knowing the laws around trade secrets.
    - erik_seaberg 9y ago
      IANAL but you can't just wait indefinitely if it's viewed as letting evidence deteriorate or setting a kind of trap for the infringer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
      - uiri 9y ago
        I am also not a lawyer. There is a distinction between wait indefinitely between an individual infringement occurring and suing for that incident versus picking and choosing which infringers to go after. The latter is not an option for trademarks. Also, that appears to be an equitable defense. If successful, it would prevent an injunction to remedy the infringement but the holder of the rights in question could still pursue monetary damages. Again, I'm not a lawyer so I could be way off base here.
    - 9y ago
- simondedalus 9y ago
  there's also of course the possibility that uber violated the CFAA if someone exfiltrated data from waymo, though the distinctions re: access without autorization and access that exceeds authorization are quite nuanced. if "uber-spy" had authorized access to many secrets, intended all along to steal it and bring it to uber, dumped a ton of data, then left and carried out their plans to give the data to uber, case law says "uber-spy" didn't violate any clauses of the CFAA, whether they signed an NDA or not ("contract based restrictions" are rarely if ever considered unauthorized access per the CFAA). however, there are many gotchas that can hook that data into access in excess of authorization (exfiltrating it on company property, even printed pages for example). once you have a nexus to get a CFAA violation in, you can start bringing in intent and monetary gain and such and potentially even get into easy to prove strict liability offenses. given the description of their anonymous server, secret phone team, there's a pretty good chance that stuff alone will open them up to CFAA based prosecution, which could go very badly. who knows though. if you're interested in this sort of stuff, which may be tangential to uber/waymo (i'm not sure / don't care) , orin kerr is the person to read.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nkurz 9y ago
  Could anyone explain why trade secrets are something you can sue over if no NDAs or similar have been signed? A. (the sarcastic answer) The USPTO explains the reasoning here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/trade-secret-policy https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-... As that page makes clear, it's now a federal offense to misappropriate trade secrets because: "As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a party to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights (TRIPS), the United States is obligated to provide trade secret protection. Article 39 paragraph 2 requires member nations to provide a means for protecting information that is secret, commercially valuable because it is secret, and subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret. The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 created federal civil cause of action, strengthening U.S. trade secret protection, with a choice for the parties between localized disputes under state laws or disputes under federal law, heard in federal courts. While state laws differ, there is similarity among the laws because almost all states have adopted some form of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. " If for some reason you need a deeper explanation (although I'm already getting a bit suspicious as to what legitimate reason you might or might not have), that page links to a helpful Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dXA5A4l0Rg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dXA5A4l0Rg While unfortunate that the USPTO has no way to distribute video information without relying on its industry partners to help get the message out[1], the video clarifies that "The failure to identify and protect trade secrets can result in a loss of competitive advantage, loss of core business technologies, and reduced profitability. In many countries the importance of trade secrets is reflected in laws and regulations that protect against trade secret theft because of the impact it can have on the economic vitality of businesses." Egad, the specter of "reduced profitability" and the loss of "economic vitality"! Underlying this important message are a series of cartoons subconsciously illustrating the principle that without federal protection of trade secrets, the recipe for the "World's Best Cookie's" would quickly be stolen by foreigners with funny looking facial hair, and then we would no longer have cookies. Any other questions? </sarcasm> B. (the non-sarcastic answer) Because businesses with lots of money gave some of that money to politicians to create laws allowing them to use the muscle of the federal government to preserve the competitive advantages they already have. Trade secrets are to patents roughly as the DMCA is to copyright: they add a layer of federal felony to what would otherwise be a civil dispute. [1] Even the interstitial makes me gag: "You are leaving USPTO.gov. We provide this link to an outside website because it has information that may be of interest to users. The USPTO does not necessarily endorse the views or facts presented on this site. The USPTO does not endorse any commercial products that may be advertised or available on this site." They make the video, post it on an external website, and then say that are linking to an external website because it might be of interest to users? And what compelled them to say "does not necessarily endorse"? You really should watch the video, though, as its "smarminess" is almost beyond words.
olliepop 9y ago
> Uber has a team dedicated to collecting trade secrets from competing companies. Allegedly, the people involved use disappearing-message apps, anonymous servers, and secret computers and phones to communicate without leaving a trail. If true, then this is absolutely unreal. Add it to the growing list of dodgy Uber tactics: Ride-hailing company (Uber) hit by revelations it used custom-built tool to deceive law enforcement, while latest departure of senior staffer deepens troubles https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/uber-secret-program-greyball-resignation-ed-baker https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/uber-secr... Uber employees have ordered and canceled more than 5,000 rides from rival Lyft since last October, according to new data provided by Lyft. http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-requests-lyft/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-re... CNNMoney spoke to three Uber drivers who said they received a text message that said they were "forbidden" from driving with another company. http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/?iid=EL http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/?iid=EL Uber admitted on Tuesday that it underpaid its New York City-based drivers by millions of dollars over the past two and a half years https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/23/15681422/uber-underpaid-nyc-drivers-accounting-commission-error https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/23/15681422/uber-underpaid-n... Uber will stop its controversial practice of tracking users for up to five minutes after a trip has ended, as it attempts to turn around its mired public image. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/uber-u-turn-tracking-users-after-trip-ended-app-user-privacy-new-ceo https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/uber-u-tu... Uber’s Hell program used fake passenger accounts to track the location and status of Lyft drivers. http://www.newsweek.com/uber-used-hell-program-track-lyft-drivers-583430 http://www.newsweek.com/uber-used-hell-program-track-lyft-dr...
- ben_jones 9y ago
  When I hear stories like this I think of the developers who likely thought of and implemented the systems behind these criminal acts and I'm once more reminded that software developers, in aggregate, are on a similar level to '90s finance "tricksters" etc. We'll do whatever if the money is there.
  - tehlike 9y ago
pimmen 9y ago
I just don’t get why engineers want to work for Uber. They have treated their drivers poorly (eg. under paying them and fighting benefits other cab companies have to pay), their riders poorly (eg. not telling them their personal data was stolen), their engineers poorly (eg. giving zero fucks about sexual harassment without the press getting involved), local governments poorly (eg. dodging law enforcement and regulators by making them wait for rides that never come), rival companies poorly (eg. ordering and cancelling rides from Lyft) and their investors poorly for not disclosing any of this shit. Really, why do you work for them? Are you laughing your asses off when you hear another engineer leaving a company that does bad things because you’re going to make more money and that’s what matters? Or is the problems you’re solving really that interesting you couldn’t care less if someone is using what ypu built to mess with people’s lives in likely illegal ways? Our profession is about solving problems that makes people’s lives better, how can you just be ok with what they’re using what you built for? Don’t you feel any responsibility making the tools they need to do these things? And, if they haven’t done anything illegal and unethical with your system yet, how can you be sure they won’t given their track record? Where’s your professional integrity is what I’m asking. If think our profession needs a license like stock brokers, realtors, accountants, physicians, attorneys or cab drivers have. Implementinh any of the systems that enabled any those shenanigans Uber has pulled off should be grounds for revoking it because I fear that’s what we need to do to make engineers stop and think ”yeah, they’re giving me boat loads of money and I get a good resume if I would want to work for Google or Facebook but what if I get caught?” because apparently otherwise they would gladly give Uber the tools to screw people over and sleep well at night.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Integrity is a rare coin these days, but to be fair, it won't buy you much. I still think it's worthwhile because...you know, be nice to people. But I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can be a sucker like that without serious consequences. I know that having integrity in the current market hurts me a bit, but I can afford it. Maybe not everyone has that sort of option - maybe Uber's extra $20k keeps their mortgage above water or something. But I dunno, maybe that's also just being charitable. I'm getting pretty disillusioned these days.
basicplus2 9y ago
Option 4. File a motion asking Judge Alsup to recuse himself (withdraw from the case). A recusal motion may be based on evidence that a judge is biased or lacks impartiality. Yeh.. the judge has busted us, so he is not impartial because he knows we are guilty...
skarap 9y ago
> Once a judge catches a lawyer in a lie the judge will question everything the lawyer says. Not a lawyer, but isn't is taken for granted that lawyers (along with everybody else) are lying in courts and that it's the jurors and judge's job to find out who is lying?
- tialaramex 9y ago
  No. Lawyers are officers of the court. Especially in civil cases which are just about the balance of evidence, their role is to put their side of the truth in the best light. Not to just make up whatever bullshit they think might win.
  - comex 9y ago
    Even in criminal cases: > the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. [source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-...]
- zebraflask 9y ago
  Absolutely not. The exact opposite. That's why this is such a problem for Uber's legal team.
tomohawk 9y ago
Here's another case where attorneys from the DoJ made misrepresentations to a judge: https://cis.org/Feere/Federal-Judge-Issues-Stinging-Order-Obama-Administrations-Conduct-DACA-Litigation https://cis.org/Feere/Federal-Judge-Issues-Stinging-Order-Ob... They were ordered to take ethics courses and barred from appearing in court in the judicial district.

109 points by nkurz 9y ago

emilfihlman 9y ago

Could anyone explain why trade secrets are something you can sue over if no NDAs or similar have been signed?

gpm 9y ago
Why do you say no NDAs were signed? Levandowski signed a NDA. Here's a quote from one of Waymo's filings. > Waymo also requires all employees, contractors, consultants, vendors, and manufacturers to sign confidentiality agreements before any confidential or proprietary trade secret information is disclosed to them. Edit: I screwed up the original quotation and had one that said he signed a NDA with Uber instead of Waymo. I've replaced it with a similar quote (also from a Waymo filing) saying he signed a NDA with Waymo...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
lmkg 9y ago
It's technically a type of intellectual property, like a patent. If no agreements are in place, it's still infringement.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  Is that really true? Is there something I can read for a better understanding?
  - Digory 9y ago
    The feds adopted a Trade Secrets Act in 2016. [0] But many states have had versions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, starting in 1979.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_Trade_Secrets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_Trade_Secrets_Act [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    """ ...a trade secret is information that: * Is not generally known to the public; * Confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being publicly known, not just from the value of the information itself); * Is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. """ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret None of those criteria requires a contract or even an explicit label, but some sort of agreement is certainly easier to defend in court, if the need arises. Likewise, trademarks don't technically need to be registered or even claimed, but they do need to be enforced. If you open source your trade secrets or let stores sell generic "Cheerios", then you have a weak claim if you ever need to bring someone to court. Gratuitous: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      Interesting... superficially it looks like patent protection without having to disclose the patent and have it eventually expire. Is that an accurate statement?
      - YawningAngel 9y ago
        You can independently reinvent it, you just can't steal it.
        jackvalentine 9y ago
        What happens if for example, unsolicited someone from the competition tells me the secret?
- mc32 9y ago
  Does that mean someone can't independently come up with the formula for Coke (Pepsi or any knock off) because it's their intellectual property? [Or KFC's 13 spices] Or is Pepsi (and other knock offs) sufficiently different? Or something else working here.
  - newfoundglory 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure the fundamental difference between trade secrets and a patent is that if someone else comes up with it independently, or if you tell someone what it is, a patent protects you and a trade secret doesn't.
    - mc32 9y ago
      OP [lmkg] says it would still be infringement, if there is no agreement [x-licensing]. Not sure if that is true or not though.
      - newfoundglory 9y ago
        They are probably assuming that you were given the information with the knowledge it was a trade secret even if you didn't sign anything specific about keeping it secret, not that you invented it separately.
        mc32 9y ago
        That was the missing piece. Thanks.
  - solomatov 9y ago
    IANAL, but for something to be a trade secret, it should be secret, economically useful and there should be some reasonable precautions preventing its disclosure.
  - nabla9 9y ago
    No. Inventing the same thing independently does not violate trade secret. Reverse engineering is lawful methods to discover trade secret. Industrial espionage is unlawful. Unlike registered intellectual property, trade secrets can be kept indefinitely.
CalChris 9y ago
Trade secrets are intellectual property which is ... property. So stealing trade secrets is stealing property which is theft. You can develop what is the equivalent of a trade secret. That is the risk and you have to make efforts to keep the secret a secret. But if an employee copies your trade secret that’s theft.
- uiri 9y ago
  No, copyright infringement isn't theft even if it has been characterized as "stealing intellectual property". Intellectual property is a broad term without any real meaning. Copyrights don't have to be registered to have effect. Patents do. Trademarks can be either. If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it. If you don't defend against copyright or patent infringement, you can just wait. Patents last for 20 years. Copyright lasts for life of the author + 70 years, or 95 years (publication date)/120 years (creation date) for corporations. Registered trademarks are renewed every 10 years; potentially indefinitely (?) You can't make any assumptions about trade secret law based on other "types" of "intellectual property" without actually reading and knowing the laws around trade secrets.
  - erik_seaberg 9y ago
    IANAL but you can't just wait indefinitely if it's viewed as letting evidence deteriorate or setting a kind of trap for the infringer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
    - uiri 9y ago
      I am also not a lawyer. There is a distinction between wait indefinitely between an individual infringement occurring and suing for that incident versus picking and choosing which infringers to go after. The latter is not an option for trademarks. Also, that appears to be an equitable defense. If successful, it would prevent an injunction to remedy the infringement but the holder of the rights in question could still pursue monetary damages. Again, I'm not a lawyer so I could be way off base here.
  - 9y ago
simondedalus 9y ago
there's also of course the possibility that uber violated the CFAA if someone exfiltrated data from waymo, though the distinctions re: access without autorization and access that exceeds authorization are quite nuanced. if "uber-spy" had authorized access to many secrets, intended all along to steal it and bring it to uber, dumped a ton of data, then left and carried out their plans to give the data to uber, case law says "uber-spy" didn't violate any clauses of the CFAA, whether they signed an NDA or not ("contract based restrictions" are rarely if ever considered unauthorized access per the CFAA). however, there are many gotchas that can hook that data into access in excess of authorization (exfiltrating it on company property, even printed pages for example). once you have a nexus to get a CFAA violation in, you can start bringing in intent and monetary gain and such and potentially even get into easy to prove strict liability offenses. given the description of their anonymous server, secret phone team, there's a pretty good chance that stuff alone will open them up to CFAA based prosecution, which could go very badly. who knows though. if you're interested in this sort of stuff, which may be tangential to uber/waymo (i'm not sure / don't care) , orin kerr is the person to read.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nkurz 9y ago
Could anyone explain why trade secrets are something you can sue over if no NDAs or similar have been signed? A. (the sarcastic answer) The USPTO explains the reasoning here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/trade-secret-policy https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-... As that page makes clear, it's now a federal offense to misappropriate trade secrets because: "As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a party to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights (TRIPS), the United States is obligated to provide trade secret protection. Article 39 paragraph 2 requires member nations to provide a means for protecting information that is secret, commercially valuable because it is secret, and subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret. The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 created federal civil cause of action, strengthening U.S. trade secret protection, with a choice for the parties between localized disputes under state laws or disputes under federal law, heard in federal courts. While state laws differ, there is similarity among the laws because almost all states have adopted some form of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. " If for some reason you need a deeper explanation (although I'm already getting a bit suspicious as to what legitimate reason you might or might not have), that page links to a helpful Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dXA5A4l0Rg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dXA5A4l0Rg While unfortunate that the USPTO has no way to distribute video information without relying on its industry partners to help get the message out[1], the video clarifies that "The failure to identify and protect trade secrets can result in a loss of competitive advantage, loss of core business technologies, and reduced profitability. In many countries the importance of trade secrets is reflected in laws and regulations that protect against trade secret theft because of the impact it can have on the economic vitality of businesses." Egad, the specter of "reduced profitability" and the loss of "economic vitality"! Underlying this important message are a series of cartoons subconsciously illustrating the principle that without federal protection of trade secrets, the recipe for the "World's Best Cookie's" would quickly be stolen by foreigners with funny looking facial hair, and then we would no longer have cookies. Any other questions? </sarcasm> B. (the non-sarcastic answer) Because businesses with lots of money gave some of that money to politicians to create laws allowing them to use the muscle of the federal government to preserve the competitive advantages they already have. Trade secrets are to patents roughly as the DMCA is to copyright: they add a layer of federal felony to what would otherwise be a civil dispute. [1] Even the interstitial makes me gag: "You are leaving USPTO.gov. We provide this link to an outside website because it has information that may be of interest to users. The USPTO does not necessarily endorse the views or facts presented on this site. The USPTO does not endorse any commercial products that may be advertised or available on this site." They make the video, post it on an external website, and then say that are linking to an external website because it might be of interest to users? And what compelled them to say "does not necessarily endorse"? You really should watch the video, though, as its "smarminess" is almost beyond words.

olliepop 9y ago

> Uber has a team dedicated to collecting trade secrets from competing companies. Allegedly, the people involved use disappearing-message apps, anonymous servers, and secret computers and phones to communicate without leaving a trail. If true, then this is absolutely unreal. Add it to the growing list of dodgy Uber tactics: Ride-hailing company (Uber) hit by revelations it used custom-built tool to deceive law enforcement, while latest departure of senior staffer deepens troubles https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/uber-secret-program-greyball-resignation-ed-baker https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/uber-secr... Uber employees have ordered and canceled more than 5,000 rides from rival Lyft since last October, according to new data provided by Lyft. http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-requests-lyft/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-re... CNNMoney spoke to three Uber drivers who said they received a text message that said they were "forbidden" from driving with another company. http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/?iid=EL http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/?iid=EL Uber admitted on Tuesday that it underpaid its New York City-based drivers by millions of dollars over the past two and a half years https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/23/15681422/uber-underpaid-nyc-drivers-accounting-commission-error https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/23/15681422/uber-underpaid-n... Uber will stop its controversial practice of tracking users for up to five minutes after a trip has ended, as it attempts to turn around its mired public image. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/uber-u-turn-tracking-users-after-trip-ended-app-user-privacy-new-ceo https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/uber-u-tu... Uber’s Hell program used fake passenger accounts to track the location and status of Lyft drivers. http://www.newsweek.com/uber-used-hell-program-track-lyft-drivers-583430 http://www.newsweek.com/uber-used-hell-program-track-lyft-dr...

ben_jones 9y ago
When I hear stories like this I think of the developers who likely thought of and implemented the systems behind these criminal acts and I'm once more reminded that software developers, in aggregate, are on a similar level to '90s finance "tricksters" etc. We'll do whatever if the money is there.
- tehlike 9y ago

pimmen 9y ago

I just don’t get why engineers want to work for Uber. They have treated their drivers poorly (eg. under paying them and fighting benefits other cab companies have to pay), their riders poorly (eg. not telling them their personal data was stolen), their engineers poorly (eg. giving zero fucks about sexual harassment without the press getting involved), local governments poorly (eg. dodging law enforcement and regulators by making them wait for rides that never come), rival companies poorly (eg. ordering and cancelling rides from Lyft) and their investors poorly for not disclosing any of this shit. Really, why do you work for them? Are you laughing your asses off when you hear another engineer leaving a company that does bad things because you’re going to make more money and that’s what matters? Or is the problems you’re solving really that interesting you couldn’t care less if someone is using what ypu built to mess with people’s lives in likely illegal ways? Our profession is about solving problems that makes people’s lives better, how can you just be ok with what they’re using what you built for? Don’t you feel any responsibility making the tools they need to do these things? And, if they haven’t done anything illegal and unethical with your system yet, how can you be sure they won’t given their track record? Where’s your professional integrity is what I’m asking. If think our profession needs a license like stock brokers, realtors, accountants, physicians, attorneys or cab drivers have. Implementinh any of the systems that enabled any those shenanigans Uber has pulled off should be grounds for revoking it because I fear that’s what we need to do to make engineers stop and think ”yeah, they’re giving me boat loads of money and I get a good resume if I would want to work for Google or Facebook but what if I get caught?” because apparently otherwise they would gladly give Uber the tools to screw people over and sleep well at night.

leggomylibro 9y ago
Integrity is a rare coin these days, but to be fair, it won't buy you much. I still think it's worthwhile because...you know, be nice to people. But I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can be a sucker like that without serious consequences. I know that having integrity in the current market hurts me a bit, but I can afford it. Maybe not everyone has that sort of option - maybe Uber's extra $20k keeps their mortgage above water or something. But I dunno, maybe that's also just being charitable. I'm getting pretty disillusioned these days.

basicplus2 9y ago

Option 4. File a motion asking Judge Alsup to recuse himself (withdraw from the case). A recusal motion may be based on evidence that a judge is biased or lacks impartiality. Yeh.. the judge has busted us, so he is not impartial because he knows we are guilty...

skarap 9y ago

> Once a judge catches a lawyer in a lie the judge will question everything the lawyer says. Not a lawyer, but isn't is taken for granted that lawyers (along with everybody else) are lying in courts and that it's the jurors and judge's job to find out who is lying?

tialaramex 9y ago
No. Lawyers are officers of the court. Especially in civil cases which are just about the balance of evidence, their role is to put their side of the truth in the best light. Not to just make up whatever bullshit they think might win.
- comex 9y ago
  Even in criminal cases: > the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. [source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-...]
zebraflask 9y ago
Absolutely not. The exact opposite. That's why this is such a problem for Uber's legal team.

tomohawk 9y ago

Here's another case where attorneys from the DoJ made misrepresentations to a judge: https://cis.org/Feere/Federal-Judge-Issues-Stinging-Order-Obama-Administrations-Conduct-DACA-Litigation https://cis.org/Feere/Federal-Judge-Issues-Stinging-Order-Ob... They were ordered to take ethics courses and barred from appearing in court in the judicial district.