Waymo: Uber Plotted With Former Exec Before He Left Google (axios.com) 45
Ina Fried, writing for Axios: Lawyers for Google's former self-driving car unit showed internal Uber emails Wednesday that it says bolster its case that former executive Anthony Levandowski was conspiring to steal trade secrets before he left Waymo. The parties are in court Wednesday trying to convince a federal judge to halt Uber's work on self-driving cars. In arguing for an injunction, Waymo lawyers argued that Uber and Levandowski devised a plan to come up with a company for Uber to later buy. Uber did later purchase Otto, a self-driving truck company where Levandowski was a founder. "Clandestine plan": "Secretly Levandowski and Uber were planning while he was still at waymo and negotiating a deal," Waymo outside attorney Charles Verhoeven said, siting internal Uber e-mails, including some from former Uber executive Brian McClendon, a former Google Maps head who ran some of Uber's advanced technology operations before leaving the company in March. "There was this clandestine plan all along that Uber and Levandowski had a deal."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There, I said it.
Anonymously...
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem they're going to have (other than paying a big settlement) is that they'll be permanently locked out of the self driving business.
Re: (Score:3)
Both Uber and Levandowski should spend some serious jail time
Unfortunately, that never happens. I will be extremely surprised if Uber gets anything even remotely close to the punishment it deserves.
Re: (Score:1)
What I'd like to know is how Google got hold of internal Uber e-mails. Surely Uber execs weren't stupid enough to use gMail?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
During lawsuits parties can demand the other turn over relevant documents.
And if a judge allows this demand, the other party is obligated to fully and completely comply with the "discovery" request.
The penalties for violating a discovery demand are severe. Every of the many attorneys I've discussed this with assert that.
How severe? IANAL, so I don't know, but one friend suggested that it could blow your entire case if you didn't comply, and that fact was uncovered later. I'd also bet that Contempt of Court would also be in the mix.
Re:Uber is done (Score:4, Insightful)
. Both Uber and Levandowski should spend some serious jail time
You can't throw a company in Jail. However, as I have said many times over, we should be able to throw everyone involved at Uber in Jail, including all the CxOs and the entire board of directors.
The fix for corporate malfeasance isn't fining a company, but jailing everyone involved. Oh, and corporate death penalty, by revoking the Corporation's charter. Leave the investors hanging onto worthless stock, and corporate culture will change.
Re: (Score:2)
. Both Uber and Levandowski should spend some serious jail time
You can't throw a company in Jail. ...
The fix for corporate malfeasance isn't fining a company, but ... corporate death penalty, by revoking the Corporation's charter. Leave the investors hanging onto worthless stock, and corporate culture will change.
A corporate death penalty is indeed logical and ethical, considering that corps. are afforded the protections of being persons. Unfortunately, I don't think any legislator would ever vote for a bill creating a corporate death penalty. Why? People (the 1000's of worker employees) would lose their jobs in such a case. And people vote.
There have been cases of operating licenses being revoked, but as I recall, they were probationary with re-licensing being predicated on making some kind of change in practic
Re: (Score:2)
In all fairness, it's misspelled in the article that is linked to. As usual, this was a cut-and-paste- job with no regard for checking anything.
amazing. (Score:2)
It seems like Uber execs are determined to get sent to jail. I hope the authorities humor them in their quest. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Relaxed code of ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
one has to wonder
Have they left anything to our imaginations at this point? I thought it was already widely accepted as fact that they've been rotting from the top.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't that obvious for years now? "The law doesn't apply to us" sounds dishonest to me.
I don't think they ever took that position. The position they took was "The law is wrong. We'll charge ahead and show there's a better way, and it will be changed." And I think they're right about that. It appears to be about the only thing they're on the right side of, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only "rights" anyone has are the ones we created, nature is pretty much neutral on the whole "rights" thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is a distinction between what control over intellectual property is provided by law, and how that control might be abused, and the concept of intellectual property in general.
Without a concept of intellectual property, how do you propose that Uber, Google, et al. who make products that have easily-copied critical contents keep others from just copying those contents and selling competing products? The amount of capital it takes to develop the easily-copied contents can be considerable, and c
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if or what they conspired to steal or did steal. Intellectual Property is bad and it's just a matter of time before everyone can have it and use it...
I must disagree. Intellectual Property (IP) is good, and here I think you are referring to just Patents, so will discuss those. Patents expire after 20 years, leaving the invention thereafter free for the world to use.
I own several "Utility" Patents (as an expert in a field). Even in this case, with my Patents known, several large companies are trying to steal (use) my inventions, and to leave me with nothing. As an individual, R&D is self-funded and slow, so I've pitched licensing to several of com
Wow, the cheek! (Score:2)
"The judge overseeing the case, William Alsup, challenged Waymo to show evidence that Uber knew Levandowski had downloaded company documents. Verhoeven argued that it can't because Levandowski is asserting his right against self-incrimination and Uber has withheld more than 3,000 documents that might prove the point."
"Uber's response: Uber says it is has the right to assert privilege on the documents in question. "We're not hiding anything," Uber outside lawyer Arturo Gonzalez said. "The privilege we are cl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So Uber's lawyers have checked those documents over and determined there is nothing in there, trust them!
That's not what they said. They didn't say there isn't anything incriminating in those documents, they said that they have a right to withhold them because they're protected by attorney-client privilege. The "we're not hiding anything" just means that they believe they have a legal right to withhold the documents, not that there's nothing in them.
What could happen? (Score:2)