6 ms·

He 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 w

by kanobo 6y ago

He 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 ago
You 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 ago
  I'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 ago
  I'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 ago
    Fun 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 ago
      My rule is "measure three times, then cut the wrong side off."
      - ineedasername 6y ago
        Yep, done that all too many times.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        Just happened yesterday.
      - codezero 6y ago
        I’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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Yep, 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 ago
I’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 ago
Never 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    You 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 ago
      I 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

by kanobo 6y ago

sushid 6y ago

You 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 ago
I'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 ago
I'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 ago
  Fun 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 ago
    My rule is "measure three times, then cut the wrong side off."
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Yep, done that all too many times.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      Just happened yesterday.
    - codezero 6y ago
      I’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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Yep, 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 ago

I’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 ago

Never 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 ago
It'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 ago
  You 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 ago
    I 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