
Levandowski files suit against Uber [pdf] - MrSandman
https://ipfs.eternum.io/ipfs/Qmd9PTEtuSrKKtJQw36aNzpjJwZAdCdwCmUn4w21mmq74z/Levandowski-Uber-Complaint-1.pdf
======
6gvONxR4sf7o
This is an interesting claim. It basically says that Uber knew about
Levandowski's crimes when they agreed to indemnify him against claims brought
by Google. Given the way Uber seems to work, this wouldn't surprise me at all.
There seems to be a lot of bullshit in this claim, but that specific piece
wouldn't surprise me.

Mostly unrelatedly, this part seems particularly shitty:

> In fact, Uber had considered acquiring Tyto in 2015 but declined to do so at
> that time. Tyto was ultimately acquired by Otto with Uber’s consent and at
> Uber’s request prior to Uber closing on its acquisition of Otto to secure a
> lower price for Tyto than what Tyto would have requested had it known that
> Uber was the acquirer.

~~~
ponker
I don’t think so. When you sell a company you are relinquishing control of it.
The acquirer wants to turn around and sell to Uber that’s none of your
business. You aren’t entitled to know the ultimate acquirer to set your price
any more than CVS is entitled to know my income to set my price for a bottle
of Coke on a hot day.

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
I'd consider it more like accepting a new job. Your new employer is totally
entitled to reorg and transfer you to a new team you wouldn't have wanted to
join on week 3. But if they planned on transferring you out of the position
all along, while they were simultaneously convincing you to leave your old job
for this cool new position that you'll totally get to have (for two weeks),
then they're being shitty.

If I found out that my new employer/acquirer was dishonest to get me on board
with the terms we ended up on, sure they "won" the negotiation in a way
they're entitled to, but it's going to sour the relationship for good reason
and I'd say it's bad behavior that makes the ecosystem worse for all of us.

------
MrSandman
244\. Mr. Levandowski therefore seeks a declaration that Uber has no right to
rescind the Indemnification Agreement without also rescinding the Otto
transaction and returning all consideration received from that deal. 245\. In
addition, Mr. Levandowski seeks damages, including any consequential damages,
arising out of Uber’s rescission of the Otto transaction.

------
elwell
> On March 4, 2020, Judge Schulman ... entered a judgment in Google’s favor
> against Mr. Levandowski in the amount of $179,047,998.64.

> As a result of Uber’s breaches, Mr. Levandowski has suffered damages in an
> amount to be proven at trial, which amount should be at least $4.128
> billion.

------
arciini
While I don't think Levandowski is a good guy (he did take a bunch of files,
even if I think it's unlikely they were used in any real way), I think the way
Google pursued him hinders skilled individuals from switching between
companies and spreading innovation.

Here's an excerpt from a New Yorker article about the case:

> The judge, William Alsup, quickly tired of such distractions. “Despite the
> excellent quality of the lawyers here, I cannot trust what they say,” he
> announced in court. The documents he was being shown, he said, included “a
> lot of half-truth” and arguments that were “not quite accurate.” Alsup
> clearly thought that something unseemly had occurred, writing in one ruling
> that Levandowski had resigned from Waymo “under highly suspicious
> circumstances,” and that the “14,000-plus purloined files likely contain at
> least some trade secrets.” He also noted that “it would strain credulity to
> imagine that Levandowski plundered Waymo’s vault the way he did with no
> intent to make use of the downloaded trove.” Yet Alsup wasn’t sure if Waymo
> had demonstrated that any of its information had been used in an illegal
> manner. “If you can’t prove that Uber got these trade secrets, then maybe
> you’re in a world of trouble,” he told Waymo’s lawyers.

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber-
steal...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber-steal-
googles-intellectual-property)

Faced with a weak case, Google settled quietly for 0.33% of Uber's stock,
which is no tiny amount, but definitely not a landmark settlement.

The more concerning part is that:

1\. Google pursued Lewandowski with the help of federal prosecutors, using the
threat of criminal trade secret charges and

2\. He was essentially abandoned by both his former employer and his current
employer. The former attacked him to punish him for wrongdoing and to set an
example. Uber abandoned him because he became too risky now that he became a
weak point that could be exploited in court.

This feels like too much leverage for a former employer to have, regardless of
whether you were truly guilty or not. In fact, I think the outcome would have
been similar had Lewandowski stolen nothing at all.

~~~
pocw
The dude stole all the IP. He literally downloaded it all on purpose the day
before he left. And took his team with him. And had a meeting with the head of
Uber (a rival) the day before he left, to plan his de-facto selling of the
Google self driving car project (which he did not own but which he could
basically duplicate with stolen IP and poached people).

If you or I did any of those things we'd have been crucified. The fact that
he's still standing is a testament to our dual legal system, one for the
wealthy and powerful and one for the normals. Had he just left without
stealing the IP he'd be fine. He even could have gotten away with violating
his non-solicit agreement. The fact that nobody can prove he used the stolen
material doesn't really apply.

~~~
lambdasquirrel
Not to mention that his Google comp was in the neighborhood of 9 figures.

~~~
Hydraulix989
Why would he even give that up to go to Uber (let alone risk criminal
charges)? Was he somehow under the impression that he would hit 10 figures at
Uber? Why does any single person even need that much money to begin with? Give
me 9 figures (or even 7), and I will call it a day. I'm really trying to
understand his individual rationalization here.

~~~
jocker12
He actually planned to create a church of AI named "Way Of The Future"
following the model of Scientology, and have all AI professionals potential
members benefit from certain american church tax exemptions - "The documents
state that WOTF’s activities will focus on “the realization, acceptance, and
worship of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) developed through
computer hardware and software.” That includes funding research to help create
the divine AI itself. The religion will seek to build working relationships
with AI industry leaders and create a membership through community outreach,
initially targeting AI professionals and “laypersons who are interested in the
worship of a Godhead based on AI.” The filings also say that the church “plans
to conduct workshops and educational programs throughout the San Francisco/Bay
Area beginning this year.” - [https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-
artificial-i...](https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial-
intelligence-religion/)

Also from the same article - "Just as important to Levandowski is shaping the
public dialogue around an AI god. In its filing, Way of the Future says it
hopes an active, committed, dedicated membership will promote the use of
divine AI for the “betterment of society” and “decrease fear of the unknown.”
“We’d like to make sure this is not seen as silly or scary. I want to remove
the stigma about having an open conversation about AI, then iterate ideas and
change people’s minds,” says Levandowski. “In Silicon Valley we use evangelism
as a word for [promoting a business], but here it’s literally a church. If you
believe in it, you should tell your friends, then get them to join and tell
their friends.”

But WOTF differs in one key way to established churches, says Levandowski:
“There are many ways people think of God, and thousands of flavors of
Christianity, Judaism, Islam...but they’re always looking at something that’s
not measurable or you can’t really see or control. This time it’s different.
This time you will be able to talk to God, literally, and know that it’s
listening.”

Levandowski says that like other religions, WOTF will eventually have a gospel
(called The Manual), a liturgy, and probably a physical place of worship. None
of these has yet been developed. Though the church was founded in 2015, as
Backchannel first reported in September, the IRS documents show that WOTF
remained dormant throughout 2015 and 2016, with no activities, assets,
revenue, or expenses.

The religion’s 2017 budget, as supplied to the IRS, details $20,000 in gifts,
$1,500 in membership fees, and $20,000 in other revenue. That last figure is
the amount WOTF expects to earn from fees charged for lectures and speaking
engagements, as well as the sale of publications. Levandowski, who earned at
least $120 million from his time at Google and many millions more selling the
self-driving truck firm Otto to Uber, will initially support WOTF personally.
However, the church will solicit other donations by direct mail and email,
seek personal donations from individuals, and try to win grants from private
foundations.

~~~
jonplackett
How hasn’t this been covered more widely? This is nuts!

------
dboreham
I think there was a scene like this in Austin Powers.

------
dwighttk
Like real money or stock & stuff worth that much?

------
lokar
Could not have happened to a more ethical company.

------
gfitz
Damn I’m sure he’s appealing to the AI godhead that he is victorious here and
doesn’t spend too long of a time in prison.

[https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-
artificial-i...](https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial-
intelligence-religion/)

~~~
lern_too_spel
The article says it hasn't been created yet.

~~~
jocker12
Levandowski says that like other religions, WOTF will eventually have a gospel
(called The Manual), a liturgy, and probably a physical place of worship. None
of these has yet been developed. Though the church was founded in 2015, as
Backchannel first reported in September, the IRS documents show that WOTF
remained dormant throughout 2015 and 2016, with no activities, assets,
revenue, or expenses.

The religion’s 2017 budget, as supplied to the IRS, details $20,000 in gifts,
$1,500 in membership fees, and $20,000 in other revenue. That last figure is
the amount WOTF expects to earn from fees charged for lectures and speaking
engagements, as well as the sale of publications. Levandowski, who earned at
least $120 million from his time at Google and many millions more selling the
self-driving truck firm Otto to Uber, will initially support WOTF personally.
However, the church will solicit other donations by direct mail and email,
seek personal donations from individuals, and try to win grants from private
foundations. [https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-
artificial-i...](https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial-
intelligence-religion/)

------
systemvoltage
Fuck this guy. These people are the cancer of Silicon Valley that generally
has integrity and decency in pursuing startup endeavors; with some rotten
apples here and there like this guy and Elizabeth Holmes.

~~~
smoe
I have never heard anyone associate Silicon Valley with integrity and decency
(pursuing startup endeavors).

Not saying they aren't, I just never really heard it explicitly said so. Is
this a common self perception within that region? What makes it so? Beyond a
baseline of that most people consider themselves having integrity and decency.

~~~
khazhoux
Investors routinely entrust entrepreneurs with millions of dollars, after only
some relatively-light due diligence. You'll meet for coffee first, then
dinner, if you hit it off then more conversations, and eventually a term
sheet. The investor doesn't ask for source code or technical documents, or
subject the entrepreneurs to a rigorous examination to make sure it's not a
scam. It's all based largely on _trust_.

~~~
thesz
I do not think that investors do not do background checks between coffee,
dinner and more conversations.

On contrary, I do think that you put too much trust on trust.

------
justinclift
It's a .docx file.

Potential for malicious macros?

~~~
MrSandman
I used filebin to create a link - should be fine. Otherwise the doc is behind
a paywall.

~~~
rvz
FileBin. Really?

I have news for you. The file itself is real but it's also acting suspiciously
like malware. (Opens a second document showing a "hire me!" message and
downloading another file)

I was lucky to spin up a VM, open it and I saw that message.

------
anxman
He needs this money because he will he broke after his prison term

