4 ms·

Uber's lawyers be lawyers and try to save their client $180M dollars, Levandowski's lawyers also be lawyers and try and save their client from being totally and

by gpm 7y ago

Uber's lawyers be lawyers and try to save their client $180M dollars, Levandowski's lawyers also be lawyers and try and save their client from being totally and utterly bankrupt. It's not mentioned in the article but it's a safe bet that Google's lawyers are also being lawyers and trying to earn the company $xxM dollars by forcing Uber to pay whatever Levandowski can't afford to. That's basically the entire contents of this article... well except for the last part which I added. I really wish journalists would actually look into the legal arguments and comment intelligently instead of just reporting one sides legal brief as if it was some form of moral argument.

saagarjha 7y ago
> It's not mentioned in the article but it's a safe bet that Google's lawyers are also being lawyers and trying to earn the company $xxM dollars by forcing Uber to pay whatever Levandowski can't afford to. There's also probably a part where Google is warning its employees and its competitors that if they do something like this, they'll go after both of them.
ghaff 7y ago
>I really wish journalists would actually look into the legal arguments and comment intelligently instead of just reporting one sides legal brief as if it was some form of moral argument. To be fair, at least in newspaper-style journalism, it isn't really in scope for journalists to give their opinion on legal arguments. Of course, they can (and should) find competent individuals who can do so and then quote them.
wmf 7y ago
The very concept of news gives undue weight to whatever argument was most recently filed in a legal case. It seems easy and obvious how to de-bias this but I guess there's no incentive to do so. (Vox is trying.)
shadowgovt 7y ago
"totally and utterly bankrupt" Levandowski got 120 million just for leaving Google. He'll be fine. He might have to sell one of his various houses, but he'll be fine.
- sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
  The article said he's already bankrupt from an arbitration with Google.
WoahNoun 7y ago
>I really wish journalists would actually look into the legal arguments and comment intelligently That's what the opinion page is for. I absolutely do not want newspaper journalists making commentary on legal briefs.
- gpm 7y ago
  Intelligent commentary doesn't have to be opinion, it can be bringing in the relevant facts. What court is this in front of? What documents publicly exist (hint: lots of them) and where can we find them? What rulings has the judge already made? What legal standards have been cited by the parties? What precedent has been cited by the parties? What are the relevant past rulings in the related cases? When can we expect further development. Instead they've just cited some sound bytes from a few lawyers in a way that doesn't even acknowledge that there is a justice system that this is working its way through. Not to mention this isn't really news... it belongs in the opinion section. Right now it's basically just repeating the opinions of Uber's lawyers instead of the opinions of the journalist (except for a small portion where they repeat the opinions of Levandowski's lawyers).
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    It is generally beyond the scope of an article like this to provide a full case history. If you want something like that there are professional journals that provide in depth legal reporting.
    - gpm 7y ago
      This comment... is really a reply to my top comment not the comment you replied to. Whether or not this is in scope has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not the report could comment more intelligently without making it an opinion piece. A large part of the the point in my top comment could be phrased as "the scope of this article is so small as to be entirely pointless".

by gpm 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago

> It's not mentioned in the article but it's a safe bet that Google's lawyers are also being lawyers and trying to earn the company $xxM dollars by forcing Uber to pay whatever Levandowski can't afford to. There's also probably a part where Google is warning its employees and its competitors that if they do something like this, they'll go after both of them.

ghaff 7y ago

>I really wish journalists would actually look into the legal arguments and comment intelligently instead of just reporting one sides legal brief as if it was some form of moral argument. To be fair, at least in newspaper-style journalism, it isn't really in scope for journalists to give their opinion on legal arguments. Of course, they can (and should) find competent individuals who can do so and then quote them.

wmf 7y ago

The very concept of news gives undue weight to whatever argument was most recently filed in a legal case. It seems easy and obvious how to de-bias this but I guess there's no incentive to do so. (Vox is trying.)

shadowgovt 7y ago

"totally and utterly bankrupt" Levandowski got 120 million just for leaving Google. He'll be fine. He might have to sell one of his various houses, but he'll be fine.

sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
The article said he's already bankrupt from an arbitration with Google.

WoahNoun 7y ago

>I really wish journalists would actually look into the legal arguments and comment intelligently That's what the opinion page is for. I absolutely do not want newspaper journalists making commentary on legal briefs.

gpm 7y ago
Intelligent commentary doesn't have to be opinion, it can be bringing in the relevant facts. What court is this in front of? What documents publicly exist (hint: lots of them) and where can we find them? What rulings has the judge already made? What legal standards have been cited by the parties? What precedent has been cited by the parties? What are the relevant past rulings in the related cases? When can we expect further development. Instead they've just cited some sound bytes from a few lawyers in a way that doesn't even acknowledge that there is a justice system that this is working its way through. Not to mention this isn't really news... it belongs in the opinion section. Right now it's basically just repeating the opinions of Uber's lawyers instead of the opinions of the journalist (except for a small portion where they repeat the opinions of Levandowski's lawyers).
- gamblor956 7y ago
  It is generally beyond the scope of an article like this to provide a full case history. If you want something like that there are professional journals that provide in depth legal reporting.
  - gpm 7y ago
    This comment... is really a reply to my top comment not the comment you replied to. Whether or not this is in scope has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not the report could comment more intelligently without making it an opinion piece. A large part of the the point in my top comment could be phrased as "the scope of this article is so small as to be entirely pointless".