16 ms·

Levandowski agrees to plea deal over Google secrets

139 points by htiek 7y ago

foolfoolz 7y ago
great example of how white collar crime does not get punished. “no more than 30 months” for a theft implicated at multi-billion dollar values. that’s even less with good behavior credit
- battery_cowboy 7y ago
  I take a different lesson: when a large company is affected, the small guy gets up to 30 months. When a small-time engineer gets his idea stolen by a big company in a similar way, they have zero recourse. To be clear, I think both should be punished, but the large corp stealing ideas NEVER will.
  - ehsankia 7y ago
    This wasn't "an idea" being stolen, it was years of work and documents, nearly 10GB of it. That's very different from a big company taking someone's idea and recreating something similar from scratch.
    - earthtourist 7y ago
      Not "stolen" but copied. Google was not deprived of anything whatsoever.
      - x0x0 7y ago
        No, exclusivity of the inventions and knowledge was a -- perhaps the -- key piece of value they held.
        earthtourist 7y ago
        Claiming that exclusivity is they key value is ludicrous. The key value of autonomous vehicle IP is the ability to autonomously drive vehicles. Unless you're a patent troll. In this case, the IP was never utilized in the marketplace against them, so they suffered no significant amount of damage. It's reasonable that they sued to stop the use of their illegally copied IP. It's reasonable that he's punished. But it should be proportionate to the damage, which was minimal.
        x0x0 7y ago
        That's similarly ludicrous. Autonomous vehicle IP is enormously more valuable if Google is the sole supplier. The value to Google is significantly less if Google plus multiple competitors have it. Your claim basically devolves to no harm, no foul, and that's not how our legal system generally works. The attempted theft was of great value.
        earthtourist 7y ago
        Our legal system does usually involve "proving damages". Obtaining autonomous vehicle IP is not equivalent to having autonomous vehicle product in the market. As an example: Boeing could almost certainly publish all of the IP for the 787 jet and not risk spawning a single legitimate competitor. Very few organizations in the world could do anything with it. What's truly valuable to a Google or Boeing is their financial, engineering, manufacturing, and operations resources. And other less tangible things. Which is why severe punishment for illegally copying IP doesn't make a lot of sense. Yes, it should be illegal and should be stopped, but it's not that big a deal in most cases. It just seems like a big deal because "tHey StolE tHe SeCreT cOdEs!" as if it's a James Bond movie. It's a case of confusing the golden goose with the golden eggs.
  - MrSandman 7y ago
    To your point. He started the program. Not that there is no fault - it's just ironic - Google mad people are "stealing" from them and they made billions by stealing all our data... In the end Google ended up shutting down its main SDC rival's entire program, recuperating all their money including employee salary, and raising 2.5 billion. Not too shabby
  - lambdasquirrel 7y ago
    Well, to nit a point slightly, his comp alone should indicate he was not a small-time engineer. He effectively had a bigger payout that most founders with a semi-successful startup exit. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/waymos-uber-lawsuit-reveals-anthony-levandowskis-120m-pay.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/waymos-uber-lawsuit-reveals-...
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    Well, I would like to agree with you, but unfortunately only larger companies have the resource and willingness to actually build the necessary infrastructure to prove someone stealing an idea
- cjensen 7y ago
  Is your complaint that his sentence is too light? Or that non-white collar crime is punished too harshly?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelt 7y ago
    foolfoolz is complaining that the sentence is light compared to non-white-collar crimes For example, if you can get 12 years for shoplifting $40 [1] or life in prison for stealing $153 of video tapes [2] that stands in stark contrast to starting a company with stolen IP and selling it for $680M and getting 2.5 years. Some people see this as part of a pattern where the justice system, run by upper-middle-class types, is unduly lenient on other upper-middle-class types, or unduly harsh on poor people. They would also point to the likes of Brock Turner who had gone to the same college as the judge sentencing him; and controversial presidential pardons [3] of friends and major donors. It's not a completely hard-and-fast pattern, of course; Bernie Madoff got a 150 year sentence. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/walmart-shoplifting-helping-hike-sentences-court https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/walmart-shop... [2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/winter2004/irr_hr_winter04_shoplifting/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r... [3] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/problematic-trump-pardons https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/prob...
    - cjensen 7y ago
      Yes, I get that... but there is an implicit "what should be fixed" attached to the complaint. This white-collar punishment is going to hurt him badly. Is fairness best achieved by hurting him even more? Or is it best achieved by "only" hurting non-white-collar crimes with a punishment similar to this? It's important because the real question here is "are you complaining about his sentence, or the sentence of others?" Personally I'm pro-reform. Would really like to see lighter sentences for a lot of things. So I'm not going to complain about this white-collar sentence at all. I'm going to complain about the harsh sentence for "people not like us."
- yoshimato 7y ago
  30 months is a major punishment for downloading a doc that tracks technical goals and doing nothing with it.
  - throw03172019 7y ago
    It was much more than just a calendar.
    - CoolGuySteve 7y ago
      Not according to the plea. You should try reading the article next time.
      - 0x00000000 7y ago
        Did you read the indictment and do you know what a plea deal is? Why do you think google is lying about the 14000 files he downloaded? That could easily be proven or disproven and everyone knows it. It’s obvious they just threw him a soft ball on probably the least incriminating file they could to just get some money back rather than dragging the trial on forever then sentencing him to 100 years. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t take all the CAD files and act in what is clearly bad faith. Yeah, I could see a 24 year old legitimately doing that “for personal reference” but he is fucking 40 years old
        CoolGuySteve 7y ago
        I do know what a plea is. Legally, this calendar is the only thing he stole. I understand Google made many claims but apparently the evidence was only strong enough for this one minor article to make through the plea negotiations. Now put yourself in this "fucking 40 year old"'s position and think about what it means for a corporation like Google to make these claims. Even if they're false you can't afford to fight them. The guy was steamrolled.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  The lesson if anyone is paying attention that if you’re going to steal $1, better make it a million.... but slow down before you hit Madoff levels. There is a sweet spot north of a million; less than a few billion.
  - chishaku 7y ago
    Is there sufficient public data to plot and find the true sweet spot?
    - garrettgrimsley 7y ago
      I'm not sure about seeing a chart of existing cases and illicit proceeds, but what is available is the United States Sentencing Guidelines §2B1.1. [0] The value amounts increase exponentially, while the points, which correspond to length of sentence, increase linearly. So, like the other poster said, go big. Take the base offense level for the crime, add the points in the chart for the dollar amount, and then reference the Sentencing Table in §5A [1]. Levandowski and other folks with no criminal history will be in column 1 of the chart. Keep in mind that this is only a guideline, and the judge is not bound by it. Let me know if you have any other questions! To demonstrate: Insider Trading - Base Offense Level: 8 Monetary Loss | Points Added | Total Points | Total Sentence Length | Dollars/month > $6,500 2 10 6-12 months $812 > $15,000 4 12 10-16 months $1,153 > $40,000 6 14 15-21 months $2,222 ~~~~ > $250,000 12 20 33-41 months $6,756 > $550,000 14 22 41-51 months $11,957 > $1,500,000 16 24 51-63 months $26,315 > $3,500,000 18 26 63-78 months $49,296 > $9,500,000 20 28 78-97 months $109,195 > $25,000,000 22 30 97-121 months $229,358 > $65,000,000 24 32 121-151 months $477,941 >$150,000,000 26 34 151-188 months $887,573 >$250,000,000 28 36 188-235 months $1,182,033 >$550,000,000 30 38 235-293 months $2,083,333 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-2-c#2b11 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-... https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-5 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-... Edit: This isn't meant to encourage anyone to commit a crime of any magnitude. Doing that would likely violate the terms of my probation.
- bosswipe 7y ago
  Two and half years is a hell of a lot of jail time. I seriously wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
  - AVTizzle 7y ago
    My worst enemy could use a decade.
  - wtvanhest 7y ago
    People have gotten used to ridiculously long sentences, but 2 years in jail would be absolutely terrible. Think of it this way, people are currently SIP and going stir crazy with all the modern stuff.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    Pretty sure he's going to Martha Stewart type powder puff federal facility. To be sure, there are many hellholes in the US, but he's not going there.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Someone getting 2 years for stealing 100+ million in gold seems unusually short. But, somehow that changes if what they stole fits on a flash drive. It’s interesting that we accept electronic money as real, but IP always feels like a stretch.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Rob a bank for 1/100000th the money and see how many more years than 2 you get
- earthtourist 7y ago
  The question in criminal cases should be: how many people's lives were hurt by the crime, and how severely? In this case, no one's life was the slightest bit injured. Uber is most likely too incompetent to be a real threat. Waymo has undoubtedly advanced far from the versions of everything that he copied illegally. It won't damage them at all. If anything, the lawsuit and criminal case were probably more damaging to their progress due to the distraction. This is pretty similar to copying software or movies illegally. In almost all cases, there is no injured party. It's simply illegal by virtue of the powerful corporations demanding laws that they can use as a bludgeon. Startups and other small companies don't get any of this "protection", but when someone copies code illegally from Google or Goldman Sachs, the FBI gets involved and makes them pay dearly. Prosecutors use the cases to make their bones. I'm not suggesting that what this guy did was ethically or legally correct, just that it didn't actually harm any human life. It should probably be illegal but the punishment/fines should be capped at a very low level. The laws should primarily be designed to stop someone from continuing to use illegally copied data.
  - saghm 7y ago
    > Uber is most likely too incompetent to be a real threat I don't necessarily disagree with all of your comment, but I feel like incompetence should not be a factor in determining punishment severity. Being unprofitable should not be a valid defense for illegal behavior.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - earthtourist 7y ago
      Sure, agreed. The point there is just that copying IP isn't that meaningful if it can't be effectively utilized. Many parties have presumably copied Boeing and Airbus IP related to their jets, and yet none have effectively utilized it. Stealing the golden eggs is not the same as stealing the golden goose.
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      It’s like justifying sexual harassment by being bad at sex
- sytelus 7y ago
  I'm against this barbaric tradition of putting people in cages for whatever XYZ crimes. I think the isolation of the rest of the society from the criminals is essential but should be done in a much more humane way. For instance, prisons should be a place to learn and develop one's mind with libraries, documentaries, education and tools of creation but still making sure the person cannot contact the rest of the society. Prisoners should be making living to pay for such facilities by doing work. You might wonder what if this actually promotes more crimes but you can increase the lengths of sentences and exponentially growing lengths for repeated offenses. A way to think of prison is just another society with its own economy and rules with strict isolation but otherwise similar in most other respects. For example, a "prison town" may have cafes, restaurants, theaters etc with everything being run by this isolated community which is not allowed to be in contact with the rest. I know this is crazy and rather radical ideal but small cages and solitary confinement is inhuman beyond thought.
  - saghm 7y ago
    > For example, a "prison town" may have cafes, restaurants, theaters etc with everything being run by this isolated community which is not allowed to be in contact with the rest What happens if someone commits a crime in a prison town? Double secret prison?
    - markdown 7y ago
      No soup for them!
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      No, you send them to solitary confinement, just as they do in prison?
  - gowld 7y ago
    Ok but lets start by freeing the poor descendants of slaves before we rush to worry about spoiled elites.
goatherders 7y ago
Even if they dont "use" anything he stole, 30 months of someone else's life in jail is a zero price to pay for Uber to get even a small amount of competitive knowledge. Even something like an internal calendar of expected timelines would be super useful and cant be unseen.
- irjustin 7y ago
  I'd argue the opposite that this was extremely expensive for Uber. The legal nightmare which resulted a loss in 0.34% of equity and combined with having to throw away whatever they had[0] before as part of the deal with Google is not cheap at all. Anecdotally, I have engineering friends on the Uber self driving team and they talk about how they are just starting over again and how far behind they are as a result of it. This is definitely a path Uber would not choose to go down again in hind sight. All to say, Uber did pay a significant price for "30 months of someone else's life". [0] https://www.wired.com/story/uber-waymo-lawsuit-settlement/ https://www.wired.com/story/uber-waymo-lawsuit-settlement/
  - goatherders 7y ago
    Thanks for sharing.
    - goatherders 7y ago
      Downvoted for having manners. Lol. Dont ever change, HN.
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    It's a gamble, though. Say you're Uber's CEO, Travis Kalanick, and you believe 3 things for sure: 1. Uber's completely doomed if self-driving cars show up and Uber doesn't own it, 2. Sexual harassment is a good idea, and 3. Uber's behind the top players in self-driving car research. Say you believe that there's a 25% chance that this Google guy can get you to the front of the self-driving car race, and there's a 50% chance you'll get caught. Based on those 3 assumptions at the top, this is a worthwhile risk. Sure, he wouldn't do it again with hindsight, both because it didn't work out and because his board fired him for creating a culture of sexual harassment, but the risk was probably worth it, strategically if not ethically.
ehsankia 7y ago
Does he still owe any of the $179M to Google or does that go away? Is he still in bankrupcy?
- veeralpatel979 7y ago
  I'm wondering this as well!
- dclusin 7y ago
  I believe that any gains that result from a crime have to be given back to the relevant parties. If you trade on insider information you forfeit your profits for example. Maybe since this is a settlement he was able to keep it. Idk. Perhaps a lawyer could chime in.
- sgustard 7y ago
  What do you have to do to get a job where you could be liable for $179M for "violating employment contracts"? The mind boggles. I hope they had free soda at least.
  - wmf 7y ago
    First you collect a $120M bonus with the stipulation that you not poach employees, then you poach the employees anyway and sell your new company for $680M. Then you're liable for $179M.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  If that amount is for civil damages, I think that would be a separate matter, but the last two paragraphs of the article leave little doubt that he is, and that Uber is not picking up the tab unless he can force them to (...would it be in the interests of Google (Alphabet? Waymo?) to help him do so? It would hurt Uber. Could it do so, if it wanted to, e.g. by hiring lawyers on his behalf?) Update: The article has just been shortened, and the paragraphs on that issue have been removed... Update 2: they are back again, apparently slightly reworded, IIRC the original...
  - 7y ago
seibelj 7y ago
After admitting his guilt and serving his time, would you refuse to work with him again? It seems like he was a brilliant guy who made a bad mistake. I don’t think he’s unemployable. Isn’t prison punishment enough? Time is the only irreplaceable resource we have.
- agoodthrowaway 7y ago
  Seriously? What exactly is brilliant about stealing designs? If he was so brilliant, he’d know what to do better or differently. He’d have been able to work around Google’s IP. That’s true brilliance. Not only is he a thief, by his own admission, but it probably wasn’t the first time he did this. The way he stole the designs he wasn’t worried about getting caught. This is not something someone does for the first time. It’s a pattern of behavior built up over a long time. I’m seriously worried about the lack of basic morals in technology where behavior like this, like Andy Rubin’s, etc.... goes unpunished because these people are “brilliant.”
  - MrSandman 7y ago
    Did you read any of the news articles? This isn't about stealing designs...
    - agoodthrowaway 7y ago
      He downloaded schematics and pcba designs, documents, etc, onto a thumb drive and transferred those contents outside of Google. Call it whatever you want. It’s called theft. * The files that Levandowski is alleged to have stolen contain drawings and schematics pertaining to circuitry and LIDAR laser-sensors that were used in Google’s self-driving cars. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine, plus restitution, for every count.* https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/27/20835368/google-uber-engineer-trade-theft-secrets-anthony-levandowski-charged https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/27/20835368/google-uber-engi...
      - MrSandman 7y ago
martey 7y ago
After reading the comments here, I think it might be better to move the source article to another one with more historical context, like https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/19/21187651/anthony-levandowski-pleads-guilty-google-waymo-uber-trade-secret-theft-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/19/21187651/anthony-levandow... Things I learned from that article that aren't apparent in this one: - Uber was forced to pay more than $244 million to Waymo in the separate lawsuit between them. - The $179 million that Levandowski owes to Google comes from a third lawsuit between him and Google over poaching engineers from Waymo. Update: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22633861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22633861 suggests that the article is being shadow edited. It now contains information on those two points, but I don't think it did when many of the comments on here were written.
s3r3nity 7y ago
Curious to hear from those who have been following the details more closely: was there _any_ legal basis to Levandowski's claims? It's easy to write him off as an extremely greedy sociopath, but I wonder if he was walking along some precarious line or "loop-hole" that eventually too many attempts to cross bit him in the butt.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  No, there is no legal basis for using corporate resources for personal gain. It's not a gray area, it's a bright line.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    No poaching agreements are a bit more of a grey area though
- jonstewart 7y ago
  My company was retained by Uber to assist in the investigation and discovery during the Waymo lawsuit. While the case settled, there’s a great deal of public information from court filings, depositions, and testimony. One deposition that’s worth reading is the one by Google’s security staff. They log everything and it’s basically open and shut that he downloaded version control repos at the time of his resignation (after not having logged into his corporate computer for months). His personal guilt has never been in much doubt.

139 points by htiek 7y ago

great example of how white collar crime does not get punished. “no more than 30 months” for a theft implicated at multi-billion dollar values. that’s even less with good behavior credit

battery_cowboy 7y ago
I take a different lesson: when a large company is affected, the small guy gets up to 30 months. When a small-time engineer gets his idea stolen by a big company in a similar way, they have zero recourse. To be clear, I think both should be punished, but the large corp stealing ideas NEVER will.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  This wasn't "an idea" being stolen, it was years of work and documents, nearly 10GB of it. That's very different from a big company taking someone's idea and recreating something similar from scratch.
  - earthtourist 7y ago
    Not "stolen" but copied. Google was not deprived of anything whatsoever.
    - x0x0 7y ago
      No, exclusivity of the inventions and knowledge was a -- perhaps the -- key piece of value they held.
      - earthtourist 7y ago
        Claiming that exclusivity is they key value is ludicrous. The key value of autonomous vehicle IP is the ability to autonomously drive vehicles. Unless you're a patent troll. In this case, the IP was never utilized in the marketplace against them, so they suffered no significant amount of damage. It's reasonable that they sued to stop the use of their illegally copied IP. It's reasonable that he's punished. But it should be proportionate to the damage, which was minimal.
        x0x0 7y ago
        That's similarly ludicrous. Autonomous vehicle IP is enormously more valuable if Google is the sole supplier. The value to Google is significantly less if Google plus multiple competitors have it. Your claim basically devolves to no harm, no foul, and that's not how our legal system generally works. The attempted theft was of great value.
        earthtourist 7y ago
        Our legal system does usually involve "proving damages". Obtaining autonomous vehicle IP is not equivalent to having autonomous vehicle product in the market. As an example: Boeing could almost certainly publish all of the IP for the 787 jet and not risk spawning a single legitimate competitor. Very few organizations in the world could do anything with it. What's truly valuable to a Google or Boeing is their financial, engineering, manufacturing, and operations resources. And other less tangible things. Which is why severe punishment for illegally copying IP doesn't make a lot of sense. Yes, it should be illegal and should be stopped, but it's not that big a deal in most cases. It just seems like a big deal because "tHey StolE tHe SeCreT cOdEs!" as if it's a James Bond movie. It's a case of confusing the golden goose with the golden eggs.
- MrSandman 7y ago
  To your point. He started the program. Not that there is no fault - it's just ironic - Google mad people are "stealing" from them and they made billions by stealing all our data... In the end Google ended up shutting down its main SDC rival's entire program, recuperating all their money including employee salary, and raising 2.5 billion. Not too shabby
- lambdasquirrel 7y ago
  Well, to nit a point slightly, his comp alone should indicate he was not a small-time engineer. He effectively had a bigger payout that most founders with a semi-successful startup exit. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/waymos-uber-lawsuit-reveals-anthony-levandowskis-120m-pay.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/waymos-uber-lawsuit-reveals-...
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  Well, I would like to agree with you, but unfortunately only larger companies have the resource and willingness to actually build the necessary infrastructure to prove someone stealing an idea
cjensen 7y ago
Is your complaint that his sentence is too light? Or that non-white collar crime is punished too harshly?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelt 7y ago
  foolfoolz is complaining that the sentence is light compared to non-white-collar crimes For example, if you can get 12 years for shoplifting $40 [1] or life in prison for stealing $153 of video tapes [2] that stands in stark contrast to starting a company with stolen IP and selling it for $680M and getting 2.5 years. Some people see this as part of a pattern where the justice system, run by upper-middle-class types, is unduly lenient on other upper-middle-class types, or unduly harsh on poor people. They would also point to the likes of Brock Turner who had gone to the same college as the judge sentencing him; and controversial presidential pardons [3] of friends and major donors. It's not a completely hard-and-fast pattern, of course; Bernie Madoff got a 150 year sentence. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/walmart-shoplifting-helping-hike-sentences-court https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/walmart-shop... [2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol31_2004/winter2004/irr_hr_winter04_shoplifting/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r... [3] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/problematic-trump-pardons https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/prob...
  - cjensen 7y ago
    Yes, I get that... but there is an implicit "what should be fixed" attached to the complaint. This white-collar punishment is going to hurt him badly. Is fairness best achieved by hurting him even more? Or is it best achieved by "only" hurting non-white-collar crimes with a punishment similar to this? It's important because the real question here is "are you complaining about his sentence, or the sentence of others?" Personally I'm pro-reform. Would really like to see lighter sentences for a lot of things. So I'm not going to complain about this white-collar sentence at all. I'm going to complain about the harsh sentence for "people not like us."
yoshimato 7y ago
30 months is a major punishment for downloading a doc that tracks technical goals and doing nothing with it.
- throw03172019 7y ago
  It was much more than just a calendar.
  - CoolGuySteve 7y ago
    Not according to the plea. You should try reading the article next time.
    - 0x00000000 7y ago
      Did you read the indictment and do you know what a plea deal is? Why do you think google is lying about the 14000 files he downloaded? That could easily be proven or disproven and everyone knows it. It’s obvious they just threw him a soft ball on probably the least incriminating file they could to just get some money back rather than dragging the trial on forever then sentencing him to 100 years. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t take all the CAD files and act in what is clearly bad faith. Yeah, I could see a 24 year old legitimately doing that “for personal reference” but he is fucking 40 years old
      - CoolGuySteve 7y ago
        I do know what a plea is. Legally, this calendar is the only thing he stole. I understand Google made many claims but apparently the evidence was only strong enough for this one minor article to make through the plea negotiations. Now put yourself in this "fucking 40 year old"'s position and think about what it means for a corporation like Google to make these claims. Even if they're false you can't afford to fight them. The guy was steamrolled.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
The lesson if anyone is paying attention that if you’re going to steal $1, better make it a million.... but slow down before you hit Madoff levels. There is a sweet spot north of a million; less than a few billion.
- chishaku 7y ago
  Is there sufficient public data to plot and find the true sweet spot?
  - garrettgrimsley 7y ago
    I'm not sure about seeing a chart of existing cases and illicit proceeds, but what is available is the United States Sentencing Guidelines §2B1.1. [0] The value amounts increase exponentially, while the points, which correspond to length of sentence, increase linearly. So, like the other poster said, go big. Take the base offense level for the crime, add the points in the chart for the dollar amount, and then reference the Sentencing Table in §5A [1]. Levandowski and other folks with no criminal history will be in column 1 of the chart. Keep in mind that this is only a guideline, and the judge is not bound by it. Let me know if you have any other questions! To demonstrate: Insider Trading - Base Offense Level: 8 Monetary Loss | Points Added | Total Points | Total Sentence Length | Dollars/month > $6,500 2 10 6-12 months $812 > $15,000 4 12 10-16 months $1,153 > $40,000 6 14 15-21 months $2,222 ~~~~ > $250,000 12 20 33-41 months $6,756 > $550,000 14 22 41-51 months $11,957 > $1,500,000 16 24 51-63 months $26,315 > $3,500,000 18 26 63-78 months $49,296 > $9,500,000 20 28 78-97 months $109,195 > $25,000,000 22 30 97-121 months $229,358 > $65,000,000 24 32 121-151 months $477,941 >$150,000,000 26 34 151-188 months $887,573 >$250,000,000 28 36 188-235 months $1,182,033 >$550,000,000 30 38 235-293 months $2,083,333 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-2-c#2b11 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-... https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-5 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-... Edit: This isn't meant to encourage anyone to commit a crime of any magnitude. Doing that would likely violate the terms of my probation.
bosswipe 7y ago
Two and half years is a hell of a lot of jail time. I seriously wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
- AVTizzle 7y ago
  My worst enemy could use a decade.
- wtvanhest 7y ago
  People have gotten used to ridiculously long sentences, but 2 years in jail would be absolutely terrible. Think of it this way, people are currently SIP and going stir crazy with all the modern stuff.
- tyingq 7y ago
  Pretty sure he's going to Martha Stewart type powder puff federal facility. To be sure, there are many hellholes in the US, but he's not going there.
- Retric 7y ago
  Someone getting 2 years for stealing 100+ million in gold seems unusually short. But, somehow that changes if what they stole fits on a flash drive. It’s interesting that we accept electronic money as real, but IP always feels like a stretch.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Rob a bank for 1/100000th the money and see how many more years than 2 you get
earthtourist 7y ago
The question in criminal cases should be: how many people's lives were hurt by the crime, and how severely? In this case, no one's life was the slightest bit injured. Uber is most likely too incompetent to be a real threat. Waymo has undoubtedly advanced far from the versions of everything that he copied illegally. It won't damage them at all. If anything, the lawsuit and criminal case were probably more damaging to their progress due to the distraction. This is pretty similar to copying software or movies illegally. In almost all cases, there is no injured party. It's simply illegal by virtue of the powerful corporations demanding laws that they can use as a bludgeon. Startups and other small companies don't get any of this "protection", but when someone copies code illegally from Google or Goldman Sachs, the FBI gets involved and makes them pay dearly. Prosecutors use the cases to make their bones. I'm not suggesting that what this guy did was ethically or legally correct, just that it didn't actually harm any human life. It should probably be illegal but the punishment/fines should be capped at a very low level. The laws should primarily be designed to stop someone from continuing to use illegally copied data.
- saghm 7y ago
  > Uber is most likely too incompetent to be a real threat I don't necessarily disagree with all of your comment, but I feel like incompetence should not be a factor in determining punishment severity. Being unprofitable should not be a valid defense for illegal behavior.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - earthtourist 7y ago
    Sure, agreed. The point there is just that copying IP isn't that meaningful if it can't be effectively utilized. Many parties have presumably copied Boeing and Airbus IP related to their jets, and yet none have effectively utilized it. Stealing the golden eggs is not the same as stealing the golden goose.
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    It’s like justifying sexual harassment by being bad at sex
sytelus 7y ago
I'm against this barbaric tradition of putting people in cages for whatever XYZ crimes. I think the isolation of the rest of the society from the criminals is essential but should be done in a much more humane way. For instance, prisons should be a place to learn and develop one's mind with libraries, documentaries, education and tools of creation but still making sure the person cannot contact the rest of the society. Prisoners should be making living to pay for such facilities by doing work. You might wonder what if this actually promotes more crimes but you can increase the lengths of sentences and exponentially growing lengths for repeated offenses. A way to think of prison is just another society with its own economy and rules with strict isolation but otherwise similar in most other respects. For example, a "prison town" may have cafes, restaurants, theaters etc with everything being run by this isolated community which is not allowed to be in contact with the rest. I know this is crazy and rather radical ideal but small cages and solitary confinement is inhuman beyond thought.
- saghm 7y ago
  > For example, a "prison town" may have cafes, restaurants, theaters etc with everything being run by this isolated community which is not allowed to be in contact with the rest What happens if someone commits a crime in a prison town? Double secret prison?
  - markdown 7y ago
    No soup for them!
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    No, you send them to solitary confinement, just as they do in prison?
- gowld 7y ago
  Ok but lets start by freeing the poor descendants of slaves before we rush to worry about spoiled elites.

goatherders 7y ago

Even if they dont "use" anything he stole, 30 months of someone else's life in jail is a zero price to pay for Uber to get even a small amount of competitive knowledge. Even something like an internal calendar of expected timelines would be super useful and cant be unseen.

irjustin 7y ago
I'd argue the opposite that this was extremely expensive for Uber. The legal nightmare which resulted a loss in 0.34% of equity and combined with having to throw away whatever they had[0] before as part of the deal with Google is not cheap at all. Anecdotally, I have engineering friends on the Uber self driving team and they talk about how they are just starting over again and how far behind they are as a result of it. This is definitely a path Uber would not choose to go down again in hind sight. All to say, Uber did pay a significant price for "30 months of someone else's life". [0] https://www.wired.com/story/uber-waymo-lawsuit-settlement/ https://www.wired.com/story/uber-waymo-lawsuit-settlement/
- goatherders 7y ago
  Thanks for sharing.
  - goatherders 7y ago
    Downvoted for having manners. Lol. Dont ever change, HN.
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  It's a gamble, though. Say you're Uber's CEO, Travis Kalanick, and you believe 3 things for sure: 1. Uber's completely doomed if self-driving cars show up and Uber doesn't own it, 2. Sexual harassment is a good idea, and 3. Uber's behind the top players in self-driving car research. Say you believe that there's a 25% chance that this Google guy can get you to the front of the self-driving car race, and there's a 50% chance you'll get caught. Based on those 3 assumptions at the top, this is a worthwhile risk. Sure, he wouldn't do it again with hindsight, both because it didn't work out and because his board fired him for creating a culture of sexual harassment, but the risk was probably worth it, strategically if not ethically.

ehsankia 7y ago

Does he still owe any of the $179M to Google or does that go away? Is he still in bankrupcy?

veeralpatel979 7y ago
I'm wondering this as well!
dclusin 7y ago
I believe that any gains that result from a crime have to be given back to the relevant parties. If you trade on insider information you forfeit your profits for example. Maybe since this is a settlement he was able to keep it. Idk. Perhaps a lawyer could chime in.
sgustard 7y ago
What do you have to do to get a job where you could be liable for $179M for "violating employment contracts"? The mind boggles. I hope they had free soda at least.
- wmf 7y ago
  First you collect a $120M bonus with the stipulation that you not poach employees, then you poach the employees anyway and sell your new company for $680M. Then you're liable for $179M.
mannykannot 7y ago
If that amount is for civil damages, I think that would be a separate matter, but the last two paragraphs of the article leave little doubt that he is, and that Uber is not picking up the tab unless he can force them to (...would it be in the interests of Google (Alphabet? Waymo?) to help him do so? It would hurt Uber. Could it do so, if it wanted to, e.g. by hiring lawyers on his behalf?) Update: The article has just been shortened, and the paragraphs on that issue have been removed... Update 2: they are back again, apparently slightly reworded, IIRC the original...
- 7y ago

seibelj 7y ago

After admitting his guilt and serving his time, would you refuse to work with him again? It seems like he was a brilliant guy who made a bad mistake. I don’t think he’s unemployable. Isn’t prison punishment enough? Time is the only irreplaceable resource we have.

agoodthrowaway 7y ago
Seriously? What exactly is brilliant about stealing designs? If he was so brilliant, he’d know what to do better or differently. He’d have been able to work around Google’s IP. That’s true brilliance. Not only is he a thief, by his own admission, but it probably wasn’t the first time he did this. The way he stole the designs he wasn’t worried about getting caught. This is not something someone does for the first time. It’s a pattern of behavior built up over a long time. I’m seriously worried about the lack of basic morals in technology where behavior like this, like Andy Rubin’s, etc.... goes unpunished because these people are “brilliant.”
- MrSandman 7y ago
  Did you read any of the news articles? This isn't about stealing designs...
  - agoodthrowaway 7y ago
    He downloaded schematics and pcba designs, documents, etc, onto a thumb drive and transferred those contents outside of Google. Call it whatever you want. It’s called theft. * The files that Levandowski is alleged to have stolen contain drawings and schematics pertaining to circuitry and LIDAR laser-sensors that were used in Google’s self-driving cars. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine, plus restitution, for every count.* https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/27/20835368/google-uber-engineer-trade-theft-secrets-anthony-levandowski-charged https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/27/20835368/google-uber-engi...
    - MrSandman 7y ago

martey 7y ago

After reading the comments here, I think it might be better to move the source article to another one with more historical context, like https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/19/21187651/anthony-levandowski-pleads-guilty-google-waymo-uber-trade-secret-theft-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/19/21187651/anthony-levandow... Things I learned from that article that aren't apparent in this one: - Uber was forced to pay more than $244 million to Waymo in the separate lawsuit between them. - The $179 million that Levandowski owes to Google comes from a third lawsuit between him and Google over poaching engineers from Waymo. Update: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22633861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22633861 suggests that the article is being shadow edited. It now contains information on those two points, but I don't think it did when many of the comments on here were written.

s3r3nity 7y ago

Curious to hear from those who have been following the details more closely: was there _any_ legal basis to Levandowski's claims? It's easy to write him off as an extremely greedy sociopath, but I wonder if he was walking along some precarious line or "loop-hole" that eventually too many attempts to cross bit him in the butt.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
No, there is no legal basis for using corporate resources for personal gain. It's not a gray area, it's a bright line.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  No poaching agreements are a bit more of a grey area though
jonstewart 7y ago
My company was retained by Uber to assist in the investigation and discovery during the Waymo lawsuit. While the case settled, there’s a great deal of public information from court filings, depositions, and testimony. One deposition that’s worth reading is the one by Google’s security staff. They log everything and it’s basically open and shut that he downloaded version control repos at the time of his resignation (after not having logged into his corporate computer for months). His personal guilt has never been in much doubt.