30 ms·
Levandowski sentenced to 18 months in prison as new lawsuit against Uber filed
- kanobo 6y agoHe was so brazen in using identical schematic and suppliers. It amazing to think all this is a result of the supplier getting confused from having two clients with identical schematics and accidently cc'ing the wrong engineers.
- sushid 6y agoYou mean "confused." I think the supplier knew exactly what was happening and decided to let the cat out of the bag.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- CamperBob2 6y agoI've had that happen with crystal oscillators that I ordered at nonstandard frequencies. The vendor gave me a heads-up when my customer placed subsequent orders for production. "Hey, just FYI, these guys appear to be cloning your product." I thought that was nice of them, as they were under no contractual obligation to decline orders from anyone else or to let me know about them. I guess Levandowski would have a different take on it.
- codezero 6y agoI'd agree with you, if I hadn't worked adjacent to the financial industry for a bit. There are a lot of companies with liberty in the name (not even just US based), and I've mixed some up, even on technical issues. Obviously the "name" isn't the issue, or maybe it is, it's possible they worked with this person in the past, and it never occurred to them to check the current employer, because it usually doesn't change that much, but once you end up working with customers in an emergent industry (separate experience in analytics, yes the past two decades is emergent), you'll find you have a customer who after a few quarters is on to a new job, but still your customer! There are so many ways for these wires to get crossed, I'll stick to Hanlon's razor, but modify it to not be about malice, but to be about confusion: Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by confusion. And if there's any chance I get something named after me, since this pattern is cute, let's call Clover's razor, any aphorism that takes on the form "Never attribute to X that which can adequately be explained by Y." :)
- codezero 6y agoFun historical fact, it's from this aphorism that the proverb "measure twice cut once" comes from, because confusion can be supplanted by repetition.
- WalterBright 6y agoMy rule is "measure three times, then cut the wrong side off."
- ineedasername 6y agoYep, done that all too many times.
- hef19898 6y agoJust happened yesterday.
- codezero 6y agoI’ve ribbed colleagues with the measure twice cut once line after screw ups, and I shared this very good retort with them and they appreciated it :)
- dantiberian 6y agoI could imagine that after Levandowski left Waymo that his email was forwarded to a manager or peer. You could see how a supplier could accidentally pick corey@waymo.com instead of corey@uber.com when they type “Corey” into the email client.
- codezero 6y agoYep, especially since Gmail also truncates signatures aggressively. They almost make it difficult to know if a person is representing an org, and instead just show what ever name they've decided is most appropriate :)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoI’ve seen this happen before in a totally different industry. Now I wonder how many opportunities there are for companies to do this and I wonder how often they get away with it.
- bosswipe 6y agoNever seen that story and can't find any details after a quick Google search. I wonder how much of the anti-Levandowski news is Google or Uber PR propaganda.
- kanobo 6y agoIt's in the official waymo statement and was pretty easy to find: https://blog.waymo.com/2019/08/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against-otto-and.html https://blog.waymo.com/2019/08/a-note-on-our-lawsuit-against... "Recently, we received an unexpected email. One of our suppliers specializing in LiDAR components sent us an attachment (apparently inadvertently) of machine drawings of what was purported to be Uber’s LiDAR circuit board — except its design bore a striking resemblance to Waymo’s unique LiDAR design." It was also in many articles. The story is that they were reluctant to pursue it until that email, you can find a ton of sources in the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Levandowski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Levandowski
- bosswipe 6y agoYou kind of made my point by quoting straight from Google public relations. Was the strikingly similar schematic verified independently by journalists? Did it come up at trial?
- kanobo 6y agoI respectfully don't really understand your point, you think there's a conspiracy to publicly falsify evidence and influence the public? That would have caused immediate problems at trial if each company made such bold false statements and would have been a blessing for Levandowski's legal team. Also, not sure how or why you would 'google' anything to verify news if your bar is so high and you're not willing to spend more than a minute researching. edit: it took two minutes to find the WAYMO LLC v UBER TECHNOLOGIES pdf on google and they reference the email evidence various times.
- bosswipe 6y ago
- an_opabinia 6y agoIf Uber shows he knew he gave them stolen trade secrets, doesn't it also follow he would have only agreed to sell Otto to them if the agreement showed he was indemnified against specifically that?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shadowgovt 6y ago"I am indemnified against violating trade secret law" isn't generally the kind of thing that finds its way into a contract.
- williamstein 6y agoMuch more interesting to me is that the article says "he will not need to report until threat of COVID-19 pandemic has passed." and "With no end to the COVID-19 pandemic in sight, it is possible that Levandowski’s latest lawsuit will be resolved before he even reports to jail."
- glitchc 6y agoWho said money can’t literally buy a get out of jail card?
- credit_guy 6y agoWhen you say "literally" do you mean to imply he literally paid someone? That's quite implausible.
- cowsandmilk 6y agoHe can pay lawyers to make the arguments for delaying until after Covid. A public defender isn’t going to do that for you.
- Thorrez 6y ago> Earlier this month, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans to alleviate the outbreak by releasing as many as 8,000 inmates and further reducing the population by about 10,000 through delayed admissions.[1] I would guess some of them had public defenders. Although I guess they got it without even having to argue for it. Did Levandowski's lawyer argue for it? According to the article Levendowski's lawyer argued for home confinement (unsuccessfully, obviously). [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200802050956/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-31/coronavirus-prisons-releases-spread-fears-communities https://web.archive.org/web/20200802050956/https://www.latim...
- 55555 6y agoHe certainly paid his legal team.
- fermienrico 6y agoMore than the 18 month prison sentence, it would have been far better to punish him with life-long red mark on his career to never be able to found, or run a company and never be able to buy stock or any kind of a position in any company. Seems like 18 months will be spent plotting his next big thing and it’s rinse and repeat. Also put an upper limit to his wealth. Say total : $40K. And cancel his passport.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoHere's the official press release from the DoJ: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-uber-executive-sentenced-18-months-jail-trade-secret-theft-google https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-uber-executive-s... They also imposed a fine of $95,000 and ordered him to pay $756,499.22 in restitution to Waymo LLC, as Google’s self-driving program is now known. Levandowski was also sentenced to a 3-year period of supervised release. I agree with your sentiment though: a short period of imprisonment in a presumably low security prison plus <US$1M in fines is definitely on the slap-on-the-wrist side of Got-Off-Easy <> Disproportionately-Severe spectrum.
- etaioinshrdlu 6y agoI’m so glad we don’t have mob rule. Society is plenty punitive enough.
- fermienrico 6y agoPutting people in an enclosed room for 18 months sounds pretty barbaric vs. the measures I am recommending which is basically live a modest free life like the middle class of America. Why is that harsh?
- cellis 6y agoHe was already sued into oblivion. What's left will be taken by the lawyers. He'll be lucky to have 500k - 5million after all this is said and done, and it will be very difficult for him to find employment into the future.
- 6y ago
- jarym 6y agoHow many other criminals can avoid jail time right now due to the Covid threat?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoQuite a few. Levandowski is in California, where they're making a pretty big effort to get nonviolent criminals out of the prison system.
- bsimpson 6y agoIt blows my mind that there are protestors at San Quentin agitating for prisoners to be released into the public when the prison is one of the biggest cohorts of COVID in the entire region. They literally let people walk out of prison and get on a public bus, after spendings months in close quarters amidst the worst outbreak in the Bay Area.
- gilrain 6y agoThey should be denied justice because that very lack of justice made them vulnerable to infection? What a dystopic catch-22.
- pedalpete 6y agoI think your comment would be much stronger if you just stated it directly - "They should not be denied justice because the lack of justice made them vulnerable to infection". - paraphrasing gilrain
- codezero 6y agoIt's called compassion. Imagine you catch a dangerous virus, and you are in a place where you have literally zero agency. It's as if you are assuming people who commit crimes, or even people who get sent to jail (they are not a perfect venn diagram) aren't empathetic human beings. Most people in prison don't want to randomly infect and kill people. Most of them do not want to hurt families, or friends. Most of them don't even want to talk or engage with anyone, and here you are, saying they should stay in a cage, accept their fate, get sick because a guard spits on them, and reflect about how they are serving time for selling cannabis, a now legal substance. There are people who are intentionally not wearing masks, and you are assuming people leaving prison will not actively try to protect themselves and others, think about that. Also, that they are put on busses is what the state is doing, not the former prisoners. They could do many other things to mitigate risk, and it's not on the prisoners, who have no money, or agency to have responsibility for that.
- oh_sigh 6y agoWow, I can't believe they made him pay back .4% of his compensation.
- 0xB31B1B 6y agohe didn't get any of the ~600m from the otto sale. It was entirely based on earn outs from progress, and there was no progress, and none of the milestones were hit.
- oh_sigh 6y agoI was talking about his Google compensation which was reported to be approximately 170 million
- enraged_camel 6y agoIf it's any consolation: the more money you have, the more painful a jail sentence, even a short one like this, is, because the opportunity cost is massive.
- 55555 6y agoWow. The opportunity cost of spending part of your life in prison is not measured in dollars. I mean, I guess Anthony might measure it in dollars, but that's really, really far gone.
- enraged_camel 6y agoThe literal definition of "opportunity cost" of something is what that thing costs you in terms of opportunity, i.e. what you could have done otherwise. If you have millions of dollars in the bank, then you can do a LOT more stuff than some poor schmuck. The opportunity cost of having that freedom taken away, therefore, is a lot higher.
- barrkel 6y agoOTOH, the marginal utility of that opportunity cost is less. Some people end up with their kids sexually abused in foster care because they had to spend a few months in prison. Is the reduction in marginal earnings for wealthy people comparable, really?
- dumbneurologist 6y agoIt seems inconsistent to punish technologists like Levandowski when we don't punish bankers, CEOs, and polluters with the the same enthusiasm.
- gameswithgo 6y agoneither group gets their home raided by seat teams or eye shot out or choked to death, seems like all have it pretty easy.
- r00fus 6y agoWelcome to unequal justice. Black people and women have suffered this for centuries.
- tptacek 6y agoIf it makes you feel any better, we don't punish any of these people with the enthusiasm that punish teenagers on the South Side of Chicago. At least Levandowski gets a sympathetic cheering section.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> It seems inconsistent to punish technologists like Levandowski when we don't punish bankers, CEOs, and polluters with the the same enthusiasm. Levandowski was cofounder and CEO of Otto, and is being punished directly for how he got there, and later (until charged) cofounder and CEO at Pronto.ai. So, I'd say we charge CEOs with exactly the enthusiasm we charge Levandowski.
- gowld 6y agoIt's not a tech thing. It's that Levandowski stole from billionaires and wasn't a billionaire himself.
- cwhiz 6y agoWhataboutism
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoI'm sure if the DAs could prove that any bankers had broken the law in court, they would be more than happy to prosecute them. The problem is two-fold: it's much less clear which if any laws were broken by the nebulous "bankers," and even if we knew which laws were supposedly broken, it will be harder to prove intention, which in the case of laws without strict liability (most of them), might end up making it hard to punish the person being investigated.
- quickthrower2 6y agoIt's like real life monopoly. He picked up his chance card. Go to jail, do not pass go. Roll a 6 and back in the game!
- yalogin 6y agoI didn’t realize jail time was on the cards. Somehow thought the court was involved only to determine the compensation.
- breck 6y agoWhy do we have laws for trade secrets? Seems like that lowers wages and decreases innovation. Really bad for majority of people. I understand they are fantastic for minority of people who are shareholders, but are there contrarians who think we should do away with legal protections for them?
- darkwizard42 6y agoNot sure if this comment is sarcasm, but if we didn't attempt to reasonably protect trade secrets the opposite of what you are saying would happen. If I invest billions in a form of technology or a superior product and it can just walk out the door to any competitor, I actually have a perverse incentive to milk my existing products as much as possible and AVOID innovation due to the lack of return on it and the ability for those ideas to just walk out to another competitor
- cwhiz 6y agoPatents exist.
- breck 6y ago> Not sure if this comment is sarcasm No, I'm generally curious, why do we have trade secret laws? Seems anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-equality to me. There must be people who question them and I'm curious to learn more. > If I invest billions... Yes, if you had billions to invest you should strongly dislike this idea. I'm saying that perhaps trade secret laws are good for billionaires, bad for everyone else. So removing them would be bad for billionaires, good for everyone else. Shareholders have the government's help in preventing their employees from leaving to compete. Without that help, they'd have to treat their employees on a more equal footing. > AVOID innovation A freer market generally leads to more innovation, not less. Sure, a small number of billionaires may stop funding innovation, but that may be dwarfed by the rise of a number of innovative upstart companies made up of former employees.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago> I'm saying that perhaps trade secret laws are good for billionaires, bad for everyone else. Sure. In a certain, short-sighted sense, so are any property rights. Trade secret law is important for anyone who wants to invest in the creation of high value intellectual property that won't be protected with patents. Without such protection, there is much less incentive for investment. Billionaires are one group of people who conduct such investment. Startup founders and early employees are another. Another group that may interest you is anyone who invests through the public market in companies that derive value from trade secret protections. And of course anyone who finds value in the purchase of such goods, or any employee of such a company. I know I personally would not attempt to build high value intellectual property if there were no trade secrets. If I had an idea I thought would be valuable but depended on the scheme, I'd leave and do the work in a country that supported my intellectual property rights.
- hannasanarion 6y agoWhy is the government throwing people in jail for leaking trade secrets? Trade secrets aren't supposed to have government protection, that's the entire point: they're risky. If you want a monopoly on your technology, you're supposed to file a patent. Trade secrets were invented as a riskier way to extend your monopoly by giving up government protection. If the government is going to give trade secrets the same protection as patents (or even more, because patent infringement doesn't come with jail time), companies have zero motivation to publish.
- xxpor 6y agoNo, patents cover someone even independently coming up with the same idea and making a copy. Trade secrets don't have that protection. You can still steal trade secrets. If you couldn't, you're basically arguing IP isn't property (which is a perfectly valid philosophical position, and one I'm sympathetic to)
- vlovich123 6y agoThe problem is that it would break all employment as we know it. Now all I have to do is get hired on AdWords, steal the algorithm, & start a startup to undercut Google. I can price at a loss because I'm a small fish. Google can't because they've got monopoly concerns. Even outside of that extreme example, this would come up regularly for any pure technology startup looking to exit with an acquisition. That's not to say it's not necessarily a better system (no trade secrets - all innovation is public) but the monetization strategy to reward novel innovation is much less clear (you can only get so far on support contracts).
- hannasanarion 6y agoThat's what NDAs are for. Coke was able to protect their secret formula with NDAs and access restriction for over 100 years without any legal protection whatsoever. That's the gamble of trade secrets: no legal protection, but you can keep your monopoly as long as you can keep the secret. If you want the government to defend your monopoly, you have to file a public patent as a price of entry. The Industrial Espionage Act of 1996 upended that balance by legally protecting trade secrets. Now you can have a government-protected monopoly for all eternity, all you have to do is stick a "secret" label on your invention. Patents are entirely redundant in this new world of trade secret protection.
- s17n 6y agoI realize that he's an asshole and his behavior was pretty egregious but as engineers we should not be happy about the precedent that this sets.
- MrSandman 6y agoAgreed. Reuters is already writing about how engineers need to be vigilant and the steps you should take to protect yourself: https://www.reuters.com/article/autonomous-uber-levandowski-law/explainer-the-trade-secret-minefield-what-workers-risk-when-changing-jobs-idUSL1N2F62ES https://www.reuters.com/article/autonomous-uber-levandowski-...
- lostcolony 6y agoYeah, but that explicitly mentions physical files, not knowledge you've acquired. Don't take physical files guys. Don't take digital files either. It's pretty simple. If it's in your head, you're almost assuredly safe. Every prosecution I can find for the Economic Espionage Act has to do with physical files. For you to be the first charged for knowledge in your head (and not running afoul of an NDA, a patent, a non-compete, etc), you'd have to be even more egregious than this guy, and just as valuable. Good luck hitting that bar.
- zerocrates 6y agoWhat's the worrying precedent engineers should be unhappy about here?
- s17n 6y agoGetting sued / prosecuted for switching jobs.
- ganstyles 6y agoSounds like he stole a bunch of trade secrets and gave them to his new job, and he got the new job because of his ability to do this. This may not be completely accurate, I haven't been following it too closely, but broad strokes. You must know this behavior is completely different than simply switching jobs?
- w0mbat 6y agoThis guy had such a sweet deal at Google originally, it staggers me that he'd go to these lengths to steal even more. He was getting a massive salarY, bonuses in the millions, and he had persuaded Google to pay him even more money through a side-hustle company of his while remaining an employee. Then he quits and steals their stuff.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoProbably a habit built up over time. You don't just go from upstanding guy to con man overnight.
- albacur 6y agoSome people always take the path towards “more.” It doesn’t matter how much they’ve got, if they can find an opportunity for more they’ll take it.
- illustriousbear 6y agoPeople in the security industry have told me that this sort of thing often comes down to ego and self-importance. In Intelligence, people have been caught selling state secrets for 10-20k a pop. The kind of secrets that can land you decades in jail. It makes no sense from a monetary standpoint.
- ahmedalsudani 6y ago
- Pxtl 6y agoOh. I hadn't been following the story and had assumed somebody was facing justice over the woman killed by Uber's unsafe self-driving car experiment. ... How silly of me.
- sushshshsh 6y agoYou mean the one who was jaywalking and wasn't visible until a split second before she was tragically killed? Do we afford the same condolences to the tens of thousands of other traffic victims?
- stingrae 6y agoThis is a very unbalanced idea of what happened. The Uber released video’s exposure was clearly adjusted to make it darker than reality. Also the sight of the “jaywalking” was shown clearly to be a place where people regularly crossed the road. There is a sidewalk that leads and ends right at that spot. So it is clearly a urban planning design issue. This is not to say that Uber is criminally liable but that it isn’t as clear cut as you may want it to be.
- barrkel 6y agoThat's the manipulated video Uber put out. Look at contemporaneous video of the same stretch of road others took - actually fairly well lit.
- m3kw9 6y agoHe was recommending himself 12 month of home confinement. We’ve basically been in home confinement for 5 months now. Basically in Covid era, he’d be Scott free
- dzonga 6y agonot otto related. why is techcrunch so slow on chromium browsers. to read the article, had to open it in firefox reader mode, private. thousands of requests to just read a wall of text.
- m88m 6y agoi just blocked everything that is not site content related.
- google234123 6y agoHe should go for far more. Someone stealing a car worth far less would go to prison for far longer!
- foolfoolz 6y agohere is how white collar crime is punished: 756k in restitution. 95k in fines. “theft” of 800k+. gets him a 1.5 year sentence 75% of robberies are for less than 10k. 3% over 250k. yet average sentence is ~10 years. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Robbery_FY15.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...
- lmm 6y agoMurder might be for 0 money, but the sentences for that are even higher. The harm of robbery greatly exceeds the monetary cost. It's right and proper that violent crime should carry much higher sentences than nonviolent crime (and that's before we get into how much less clear-cut these white-collar cases usually are).
- slavik81 6y agoRobbery is a violent crime. It's distinguished from pure theft by the use of force (or the threat thereof), which is why it is punished more harshly.
- pauljurczak 6y agoIt just proves that if you want to do a crime, do the white collar crime. White gloves treatment will ensue, if you get caught.
- 6nf 6y agoDon't steal $5,000 from the liqor store, that will get you arrested at gunpoint and you'll spend many years in prison. Instead steal $50,000,000 and you'll probably still be rich once you pay the fines and complete the community service or home arrest.
- ineedasername 6y agoDepending on the circumstances and state, unarmed robbery could earn you less jail time than Levandowski. Armed robber on the other hand may carry a minimum 5 year sentence. This seems just fine to me. The amount of money between the $5k liquor store and Levandowski's theft is almost irrelevant: the armed robbery comes with significant risk of violent loss of life, which rightfully weighs much heavier in the criminal justice system than some other crimes. Now if you want to talk about ridiculous sentencing minimums for non-violent crimes like possession of small amounts of illegal drugs, I'm all ears.
- thewhitetulip 6y agoBut that's the case with all white collar crime right? they all get very less sentences. from the outside, it looks like the system is rigged to favour the rich white collar folks or maybe your point is also valid, as in, there is no threat to life and that's their criteria of measurement. But it is a fact that rich people get treated better in the Prison system
- smabie 6y agoIf it's your first offense and don't have a weapon and don't hurt anyone, stealing from a liquor store won't get you very much time at all.
- 6y ago
- bonoboTP 6y agoAn honest and naive question from someone outside industry: where is the line between stealing trade secrets and taking your experience and expertise developed at another company to a new company. Where does a lesson learned during project X become taking the know-how of the company which it developed during project X? Because obviously the next company pays you so much because they see in your CV that you gained experience at the other company. This also works outside tech and I'm genuinely confused how this works for people bouncing across FAANG, say. How do they not take best practices across companies? What is your personal expertise and what is company IP? Does it depend on the wording of the contract? Is it ambiguous and murky and up to the court and everyone just hopes they won't get in trouble?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- creed98 6y agoWho wouldn't take the best tech from google and improve it in waymo. Only an idiot would redo everything from scratch. Every real engineer knows its more important to get the job done than take credit
- reactchain 6y agoIsn't this type of thing usually a civil case - how is it that he can get jail time? Also what ever happened to Kalanick in all of this?
- somethingwitty1 6y agoTheft and attempted theft are criminal acts, which is what he was sentenced for. He was also subject to civil litigation.
- biot 6y agoI guess that answers the question: he would download a car.
- Waterluvian 6y agoWhen I have an upcoming dentist appointment looming over my head, My entire week can be ruined by anxiety. I have no idea how people can be sentenced to serious time in prison that will happen... sometime in the future...
- BiosElement 6y agoFor what it's worth, Befriend your dentist and the staff there and take headphones to listen to a long podcaste, video or music. It's not perfect of course, but it does wonders and letting them know also helps so they can help get you through it. Finding another dentist or looking into sedation is also an option if it's too bad. As someone with crap tons of dental work and awful teeth, I assure you you're not alone there. :)
- Waterluvian 6y agoI really appreciate you sharing. Thanks.
- johnpowell 6y agoDitto. I have had tons of dental work. Fire up the iPod, and yes I still use a old iPod Nano for walks and dental work so I can be distraction-free. Toss in some nitrous and it is almost a pleasurable experience. I certainly don't dread going to the dentist. Good music and pretty colors.
- strogonoff 6y agoWait. The guy essentially says “I committed a crime, will pay US$XXX million, but we had it in our contract that the guys who hired me would take the blame, so make them pay me US$X billion.” Am I reading that correctly? Can that contract even remain legally recognized? Sorting out quarrels between entities who were found cooperating in a crime, evaluating whether one should compensate the other for failing to uphold its part of the deal, certainly looks like the best use of a country’s justice system.
- bagacrap 6y agoNo, it's a bit more complicated as Lev alleges he was unfairly screwed out of ownership of Otto (Uber Freight).
- strogonoff 6y agoFrom the filing: > As part of the transaction for the acquisition of Otto, Uber agreed to indemnify Mr. Levandowski for claims Google might raise against him. These claims included claims Google might assert for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, breaches of various restrictive covenants, and trade secret misappropriation. > Uber was aware of Mr. Levandowski’s conduct through the extensive investigation it conducted prior to and after entering into the indemnity agreement with him, and long before it purported to rescind. To the extent Uber claims it was unaware of certain facts, those facts were not material and were fully available to Uber had they cared to look more carefully at the materials it was provided by Mr. Levandowski. In fact, Mr. Levandowski repeatedly told Uber to search those devices for the most accurate information. > Mr. Levandowski therefore commences the Adversary Proceeding to obtain declaratory relief as to the impact of Uber’s purported rescission on the parties’ respective rights and obligations, to enforce Uber’s obligations arising from the Otto transaction, and to disallow the Proof of Claim. If I’m reading it correctly, Levandowski says Uber was in on the whole thing as early as Otto’s acquisition (if not earlier), and Uber did not deliver on what was promised per their arrangement. That makes whatever was promised for Otto essentially reward for a crime, which incredibly Levandowski expects to rectify in a court of law.
- sschueller 6y ago18 months for this but the kid that hacked twitter and stole ~100k is facing life in prison. This seems insane.
- dragonwriter 6y agoThat's because one is talking about an actual sentence and one is talking about a theoretical maximum based on filed charges; the theoretical maximum for the laundry list of charges filed against Levandowski before he pled to one of the minor elements was pretty frigging enormous (and much more than he would have actually been likely to get even if he was convicted of the whole laundry list.)
- whywhywhywhy 6y agoTwitter kid used his hack to steal from many individuals. This guy just stole from a company. Same logic as to why no one cared when Target was being looted a few weeks ago, "They have insurance".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jimnotgym 6y agoWhy is white collar crime punished with such light sentences? I could have got that sentence for house breaking, or shoplifting to the value of $5k. I could get a lot more for dealing drugs to a few friends. Steal $100m and get 18 months, starting when the world is a nicer place. The world really is set up for rich people.
- bzb3 6y agoA thug stealing $1k from me would hurt me much more than someone stealing $100m from Google would hurt them.
- westicecoast32 6y agoSomeone made this point elsewhere. It's a 'trade secret' and 'stealing' is not as accurate as 'leaking' or 'copying' as it doesn't prevent the original owners from using it. Usually civil lawsuits are fines. Should your (ex) employeer be able to put you in prison? Because I can see how that can be misused if a few figured out how to be convincing enough
- timavr 6y agoFor any non-violent crimes we should not send people to prison. I don't even know why it became a criminal matter. Civil courts can do that job really well. If we prosecute everyone who took information from the previous job, then there will no sales people left. I don't know any SaaS sales person who doesn't take their sales funnel with them.
- wasmitnetzen 6y agoThat would mean that rich people could just do non-violent crime without any real consequences. The risk to be caught is way too small to outweigh the rewards of those crimes. It would still be a benefit for them in the long term.
- CarbyAu 6y agoThe rich already can do a lot without any real consequences. Fines are for poor people. Fines for minor matters should be % based somehow. (I don't know how!) My $150 parking ticket should be their $15,000 parking ticket.
- gadgetsick 6y agoNice Post
- Tepix 6y agoLooks like his "Way of the Future" church website is also no longer his: https://www.wayofthefuture.church/ https://www.wayofthefuture.church/ The last time it was online with the original content was in March 2020.
- ganfortran 6y agoSo he would end up with hundreds of millions in his own pocket still?
- tibbydudeza 6y agoHis professional reputation is in tatters ... probably best he goes to China after his release as they will probably be the only ones that would not care and have the cash that would hire him.
- onetimemanytime 6y agoMaybe he has some hidden, but then we'd be talking about bank and bankruptcy fraud and people are probably keeping an eye on him. Any new job after all is settled and done, will be without much responsibility or upshots
- Ijumfs 6y agouMatrix has prevented the following page from loading: https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=3_cc-session_130e4624-8d10-4373-bd5e-0a0b29ffc448 https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=3_...
- shoulderfake 6y agopoor guy ,from ballon dor contender to jail cell