6 ms·
Lyft Accuses Former COO of Stealing Confidential Docs Before Joining Uber
- elastine 12y agoUber is proving to be one very shitty organization.
- bruceb 12y agoHow many of these suits are successful? I know often an agreement is reached at it is not public. It would be great to know.
- jonsterling 12y agoI hope they destroy each other!
- kstrauser 12y agoMe too. I despise how Lyft and Uber servers always take my request without offering stupid excuses why they can't come to where I'm at, unlike the cab companies. I hate that they never have a problem billing my credit card, unlike yellow taxis. And I especially dislike that I can usually get an estimate of my fare ahead of time, so that it's not in the driver's best interest to take me from SOMA to North Beach via Daly City - unlike the cabbies. I'm sorry, but I just can't have this conversation non-sarcastically. Both companies offer _so_ much better service than their predecessors that I can't understand the desire to go back to the bad old days.
- DINKDINK 12y ago>I can't understand the desire to go back to the bad old days. There's nothing in the comment you're responding to that advocates for regressing back to a Regulated Taxi paradigm.
- stormbrew 12y agoAs someone who lives in a city that doesn't yet have either, it really frustrates me that they (but mostly Uber) keep pulling this shit, precisely because I'm stuck in the bad old days and I have tasted the new, but they're poisoning this well really severely right now. Uber in particular is the most likely to make an entrance here (they're hosting driver registration right now, but the bylaw situation is murky at best) and I'm really worried that if they get shut out for some of the bullshit they pull it'll kill the regulatory framework for other entrants for a long time.
- jonsterling 12y agoYep. As much as commenters want to paint me as just anti-innovation, I really do want an end to the taxi monopoly. The difference is, I don't want a different taxi monopoly, and I do not like to support two robber-baron startups who essentially consider themselves not necessarily beyond the reach of the law, but simply more important than the law.
- minimaxir 12y agoNote that the defendant is VanderZanden, not Uber.
- anigbrowl 12y agoFor the time being. After they're done with discovery on his Gmail and Dropbox personal accounts there would be an amended complaint.
- minimaxir 12y agoItems 87-93 of the lawsuit are very interesting. They imply that VanderZanden convinced other Lyft employees to abandon ship to start a startup...but then they join Uber instead? Item 27 is probably the first legal usage of "acqui-hire" ever.
- cheepin 12y agoIsn't this exactly what non-compete clauses were meant for?
- delecti 12y agoYeah, it's one thing for Jimmy John's to protect their company from sandwich assemblers stealing sandwich secrets, its another for a corporate officer to move to their main direct competitor. At least have the common decency to spend a period as a government industry regulator in between.
- colinbartlett 12y agoNo, this is what confidentiality agreements are for. Which the defendant allegedly signed. Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable, particularly in California.
- quaunaut 12y ago> Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable Is this true? I'm not doubting, I'm just wondering why. I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable.
- mikeyouse 12y agoNon-competes (including out-of-state non-competes) are automatically void in California except in very specific circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
- shalmanese 12y agoNotably, acquisition, which is what happened to VanderZanden is one of the few cases non-compete is enforceable, meaning they either didn't bother imposing a non-compete upon acquisition or it was only for 1 year and he ran out his term.
- alain94040 12y agoRead the complaint, it's pretty bad. Dude googles how to copy his work email from gmail, and also copies hot corporate documents to his private dropbox the day he quits for Uber. All the while emailing the Lyft founders saying "I still love you like brothers". I try to avoid people and companies with poor ethics.
- shoyer 12y agoIndeed, the evidence is pretty damning. My guess is that this ends with him fired from Ubert. Now that Lyft has presented the evidence, that may be the only way for Uber to avoid liability itself.
- colinbartlett 12y agoLink to complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/245665642/Lyft-Sues-Former-COO http://www.scribd.com/doc/245665642/Lyft-Sues-Former-COO It's pretty damning if it is proven. Be on the lookout for a confidential settlement.
- bradleyjg 12y agoWhy would Lyft agree to a confidential settlement? The bad publicity for Uber is more valuable than whatever money they can get from their former employee.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- meowface 12y agoI think that enemy has already been made...
- colinbartlett 12y agoI just think it's unlikely this comes to trial simply because of the evidence. And if it doesn't go to trial, that means a settlement and I think these sorts of things are customarily confidential. IANAL.
- refurb 12y agoEvery company that supports employees using their personal devices (phones, tablets, etc) as work devices should read the complaint carefully. If it's the companies phone, they can request it be returned. VanderZanden was using his personal phone while at Lyft. When he left, he just sold it. The problem is that it puts Lyft in an awkward position: they are requesting he turn over his personal device so that they can analyze it to confirm no confidential information remains. "VanderZanden provided no explanation as to why he sold his phone.... it's an odd thing for a high-net worth individual to do..." I'd probably tell them to stuff it too, it's my phone. Also, I find it interesting that the complaint is also against one to ten "unnamed defendants". I didn't know you could do that.
- jcdavis 12y agoThis is why Exchange support on iOS (not sure about Android) allows remote wipes, and you better remove the account before you quit
- gamblor956 12y agoAndroid too, but android has mtm software like nine or touchdown that act as virtual devices for exchange access. If the exchange account is terminated, only the virtual device gets wiped.
- ceejayoz 12y ago> Also, I find it interesting that the complaint is also against one to ten "unnamed defendants". I didn't know you could do that. MPAA/RIAA did this a lot when suing downloaders. They'd sue based on IP addresses, so the complaint would be against 50 John Does.
- jevinskie 12y agoSony vs Geohot et al had John Doe 1-100. http://ia700401.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.cand.235965/gov.uscourts.cand.235965.docket.html http://ia700401.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.cand.23...
- 12y ago
- mkal_tsr 12y agoJust a continuation of the uber-lyft saga of ethics and fair business practices ... ahahaah, sorry, I can't type that with a straight face. Seeing these crowd-sharing services eat each-other is both hilarious and sad. The underhanded tactics, the smearing, etc., just sad this is the state of affairs for companies that receive millions and millions in funding. I guess it'll be good for their legal department's bank statements, so that's somethin.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- refurb 12y agoIf you read the details of the complaint, it gets interesting. They claim he failed to return his computer, but if you read points 42 and 43, they first asked him on Aug 18th (6 calls and emails went unanswered) then actually retrieved it the next day. Really? If the guy is busy he may not have made it a priority.
- patio11 12y agoComplaint paragraph 47 alleges that use of Evernote constitutes a breach of confidentiality and fiduciary duty, which is one of those things that strikes me as "legally pretty defensible" and "totally disastrous when juxtaposed with how knowledge workers actually work." Edit: Actually, on re-reading, they appear to mean not "Evernote constitutes a breach" but "We accessed his Evernote and his state of mind, as recorded in it, constitutes a breach." (Eek.)
- alain94040 12y agoI think you misread the complaint. Evernote is only mentioned as evidence of planning. The dude wrote down his todo list of copying on Evernote...
- viscanti 12y agoSounds like a great company to work for. Everyone hopes that their employer logs in and reads their personal account on evernote and dropbox.
- x0x0 12y agoI wonder how they accessed his evernote, if it was legal to do so, and if not, whether anyone will be prosecuted (the last question is certainly no.)
- toomuchtodo 12y agoEvernote client syncs locally. They performed forensics on the filesytem, and the note was more than likely cached locally on disk. Weapons-grade stupid on VanderZanden's part.
- 3327 12y agowow this is ugly heavy duty stuff. I bet that data is more valuable then the settlement. Data like that on your competitor is priceless specially at this level of competition.
- roymurdock 12y agoAfter seeing a lot of negative press on Uber and its questionable tactics, I'm wondering the following: Is it necessary for Uber to be so cutthroat, sneaky, and brutal to survive in the space they've carved out for themselves, or is this just a reflection of the poor character of the management team?
- forrestthewoods 12y agoWell I think for starters they haven't carved out a space for themselves. They were the first to a new space made possibly by recent advances in technology, but that's it. Furthermore as technology continues to march forward it's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the same space. So from that perspective yeah, yeah I guess they do have to be cut throat to survive. The service they provide is not far off from being commoditized. It's easy and cheap for competitors to step in and drive prices down. Will be very, very hard for Uber to secure their space. Honestly the only thing that will make it possible is the same time of legal protection that taxi companies have had. Oops.
- hkmurakami 12y agoThey can also protect it through scale, since more drivers and users on the platform means better liquidity in the rider driver market, and a more pleasant seamless experience compared to a newcomer. Hence the cutthroatness.
- mbca 12y ago> [I]t's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the same space. Not going to happen. Those "regulators" they decry so loudly? I'm sure they have plans to buy a few once they get big enough and use them to put barriers in place to put a stop to any competitors. Combine that with their size (and thus their ability to undercut any new competition), and I don't see anything but an Uber monopoly on the way.
- prostoalex 12y agoAnother article from today might answer that question: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-controversy http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/12/uber-travis-kalan... In a nutshell, constant confrontation with politicians, taxi medallion owners, its own drivers, and competitors make this a fairly cut-throat industry. Uber took up this battle. Would a nicer, gentler company succeed in this space? Hard to say, so far the data says no.
- toephu2 12y agohow did they trace the searches back to his computer? Did they have some key logging software? or if he was using HTTP it was easy to trace back to his local IP? if he was searching w/ HTTPS is it true they probably couldn't trace the searches back to his computer? (assuming he cleared his history+cache)
- ceejayoz 12y agoMight be something so mundane as forgetting to clear his history on the company laptop (or they restored it - they mention computer forensics a few times).
- toomuchtodo 12y agoIf your browser does't encrypt your cookies, they sitting on the disk unencrypted at rest, easily read right of the filesystem. You could then use those cookies to gain access to the respective sites/services/accounts they're tied to.
- Bud 12y agoHmmm. Looks like someone is flagging this item to knock it off the front page. Any bets that it's Uber-affiliated folks? Not really cool behavior.