Uber Threatens To Fire Engineer Accused of Stealing Trade Secrets From Waymo (gizmodo.com) 39
Uber's general counsel Salle Yoo has warned Anthony Levandowski that if he doesn't return the files he's accused of stealing from Google's self-driving car unit and using them to develop similar technology at Uber, or open deny taking them, he could be fired. Gizmodo reports: Uber's general counsel Salle Yoo warned Levandowski in a letter sent Monday and made public last night that, if he didn't return the stolen files or openly deny taking them, he could be fired. The letter is a result of a court order issued Monday, and Levandowski has until the end of the month to comply. "We understand that this letter requires you to turn over information wherever located, including but not limited to, your personal devices, and to waive any Fifth Amendment protection you may have," Yoo wrote. "While we have respected your personal liberties, it is our view that the Court's Order requires us to make these demands of you." Despite the allegations against him, Levandowski's job at Uber has been protected so far by his reputation as a rising star in the self-driving industry and his close friendship with CEO Travis Kalanick, who called Levandowski his brother from another mother. However, Yoo's letter hints that the tide at Uber may be turning against Levandowsk -- in addition to demanding he return Waymo's documents, Yoo also asks Levandowski to return any Uber files he may have and to only use Uber-issued devices for work, where his actions will be monitored. "If you have not fully complied with our prior request to return all Uber-owned documents in your possession, custody, or control, you must immediately return all such documents to us," Yoo wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the square root of two?
Re: (Score:2)
The point of "returning" them is to prove what the party of the second took from the party of the first. They're not returned because the party of the first no longer has them, but to demonstrate what the party of the second took from the party of the first, so that the party of the second is not able to use what was taken. I expect that if Google/Alphabet/Waymo has evidence of what was accessed then they have a good case for denying Uber the ability to use the contents of those, and to block doing any de
Re: (Score:3)
I know of a consultant who negotiated a contract with a competitor of a past client that indemnified him against any legal action. The 2nd company lost the lawsuit brought by the 1st company and had to get out of the business entirely but the consultant came out OK.
Why would he care... (Score:1)
Illegal Court Order (Score:2)
We understand that this letter requires you to turn over information wherever located, including but not limited to, your personal devices, and to waive any Fifth Amendment protection you may have,
Last I checked a Judge CANNOT issue an Order demanding someone to Waive a constitutional right.
Waiving a constitutional right can be offered as a voluntary option for a settlement, not as an Involuntary requirement demanded by a judicial order.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked a Judge CANNOT issue an Order demanding someone to Waive a constitutional right.
This is civil litigation. The 5th Amendment is for criminal cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the police, lawyers not representing you don't have to tell the truth when trying to get you to do something which may or may not be beneficial to you.
Remember, Salle Yoo is Uber's general counsel who is representing the company... not a single employee, and this action makes perfect sense as it creates even more groundwork for with-cause termination and perhaps claw-back of some benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Most states are at-will employment states... that doesn't mean that a smart company doesn't lay the groundwork with meticulous documentation of issues leading to termination to avoid any issues should someone opt to litigate... speaking as someone who has been on both sides of such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The letter didn't come from a judge. Learn some basic reading comprehension, you trisomic knackerbag.
Re: (Score:2)
, you trisomic knackerbag.
Has to be from a random insult generator.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of Uber is to try to have enough of a passenger-livery company when self-driving tech becomes viable to become profitable. They're currently not profitable, and if they don't manage to ditch the albatross around their neck to the satisfaction of the court then they might be denied the use of any self-driving technology that they don't purchase from the open market, which would probably mean the end of the company entirely.
Explain to me why BeauH1B's summary is fucked up (Score:2)
He wrote: "or open deny taking them"
In the quoted bit it's in actual English, like with an adverb and shit: "or openly deny taking them"
Now any person with an IQ greater than his pant size would have simply copied & pasted it. So he either hasn't worked how to do that, or he thought there was an error there and "corrected" it.
The fact that it's pointless, lame, and bad style to repeat (almost) yourself like that is another issue for another time.
Re: (Score:2)
They int thet gerd.
Fucking hell, people from Barnsley write better.
Re: (Score:2)
Y'all have sumpin agin the South?
Something is odd here (Score:1)
Threatened? Makes you think that something is really serious here. Even government contractors will typically summarily terminate people who pull an ethical lapse of this scope with client regulations or civil law.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there is public pressure, companies will not usually fire someone who may or may not have done something. The threat is to make him actually say that he didn't steal them, waiving his fifth amendment rights in the process. If it turns out that he did steal them, he'll get fired regardless.
Brother from Another Mother? (Score:2)