
Anthony Levandowski ordered to pay $179M to Google - sologuardsman2
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/04/anthony-levandowski-ordered-to-pay-179-million-to-google/
======
KKKKkkkk1
It feels perverse that when Uber's stolen technology killed a pedestrian,
nobody was held liable and in fact no charges were pressed and no civil
lawsuits were filed. But the person who stole that technology was indicted and
is getting financially destroyed.

~~~
wahern
According to Wikipedia, the daughter and husband "quickly reached an
undisclosed settlement" with Uber. Uber very likely paid out a large sum.

~~~
cyphar
That covers the civil side of things, but GPs point about criminal charges
still applies. Yeah, they might have signed an NDA but I don't think those can
restrict what can be uncovered during discovery (but I could be wrong --
IANAL).

~~~
dodobirdlord
Sure, but I'm sure some prosecutor took a look at it and decided it wasn't
worthwhile. People get killed in accidents all the time, and frequently nobody
gets charged with anything. A person being killed in a car accident while
jaywalking at night because the driver wasn't paying attention particularly
well is a story as old as cars, and usually doesn't result in jail time. Turns
out, people are legally allowed to drive while being really shitty drivers,
and you mostly can't prosecute people criminally just for being bad at
driving. If anyone was going to face criminal charges it would be the driver,
and I suppose the relevant prosecutor didn't like the odds.

~~~
rwmj
_> Turns out, people are legally allowed to drive while being really shitty
drivers_

The UK actually has a law against this, see "Causing Death by Careless or
Inconsiderate Driving (Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988, amended by the
Road Safety Act 2006, s. 20)" here: [http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-facts-a-
resources/facts/497-...](http://www.brake.org.uk/news/15-facts-a-
resources/facts/497-inadequate-criminal-charges-for-drivers-who-kill-and-maim-
through-bad-driving-in-the-uk)

It means you can be prosecuted for causing a death in a moment of inattention.
It's a bad law from both sides: As you can see from the link above it doesn't
satisfy the charity (who want stronger penalties), while at the same time
being a catch-all law which could catch anyone out who drives, even if they
are generally very cautious drivers.

By the way I should add there was already a separate law for causing death by
_dangerous_ driving.

One more reason why we need self-driving cars I suppose.

~~~
SilasX
It’s illegal to run people over by accident in the US too (if it was feasibly
avoidable). The parent’s point was that prosecutors usually exercise their
discretion not to charge them.

~~~
ta999999171
...because we have no solid public transportation in most parts, and driving
has become a right instead of the privilege it should be.

------
zanek
Levandowski just filed for bankruptcy saying he has less than $100M in assets
. Does anyone know if he will only pay a percentage or is only delaying this
by kicking the can down the road to another court ? I would be highly
surprised if his employer (Uber) shouldered any of the this

~~~
tomerico
I wonder how he doesn't have more assets after he sold his company to Uber for
$680 millions

~~~
humanlion87
Or maybe he off-shored the rest of his money? This < $100mil are the assets
that are under his name and the rest are in tax havens/under different shell
companies? Not sure whether that is possible. But it seems like rich people
always have multiple ways of hiding their money.

~~~
pembrook
This is a mid-century Hollywood myth that just won't die. Even when it was
still possible to do so, a tiny, tiny minority of Rich Americans were actually
evading taxes by hiding money overseas.

Today, it's virtually impossible to hide money overseas as an American after
FATCA and various other crackdowns unless you are willing to entirely give up
your US citizenship. Since the $USD is the reserve currency of the world, the
US government has enormous leverage in mandating foreign banks to report on
the assets of every single US citizen with money abroad.

In fact, foreign banks are so scared right now, many will refuse to even deal
with Americans outright. It's a huge draconian nightmare for expats--99% of
whom are not rich by any means.

Ironically, if you're looking to do something nefarious, the best place to do
so is actually right here in the US! Numerous states allow you to create
anonymous corporations and trusts.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
Have you ever heard of the Panama Papers?

~~~
Mvandenbergh
The above is the reason why there were very few Americans in those papers.
They're not worth the risk.

------
econcon
One previous fraud man once told me when you acquire money through fraud,
spend it all on powerful people who can reciprocate those favours later when
all your assets are seized.

They can confiscate the money/assets, can they stop the barters who of which
they've no records?

~~~
carapace
Don't coach people on criminal behaviour??

------
martin_a
Outline link for anyone who is not willing to fight with techcrunchs cookie
monster.

[https://outline.com/Lpu8GE](https://outline.com/Lpu8GE)

~~~
dijksterhuis
Failing to load for me on iOS...?

Can’t stand the TechCrunch Cookie Monster.

~~~
martin_a
Hm, sorry, works on my Desktop with Firefox.

Ah, take the text, it's not that long:

\---

Anthony Levandowski, the engineer and autonomous vehicle startup founder who
was at the center of a trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo, has been
ordered to pay $179 million to end a contract dispute over his departure from
Google.

Reuters was the first to report the court order.

An arbitration panel ruled in December that Levandowski and Lior Ron had
engaged in unfair competition and breached their contract with Google when
they left the company to start a rival autonomous vehicle company focused on
trucking, called Otto. Uber acquired Otto in 2017. A San Francisco County
court confirmed Wednesday the panel’s decision.

Ron settled last month with Google for $9.7 million. However, Levandowski, had
disputed the ruling. The San Francisco County Superior Court denied his
petition today, granting Google’s petition to hold Levandowski to the
arbitration agreement under which he was liable.

Levandowski himself may not have to pay the money personally, as this sort of
liability may fall to his employer depending on his contract or other legal
quirks. However, Levandowski personally filed today for Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
stating that the presumptive $179M debt quite exceeds his assets, which he
estimates at somewhere between $50M and $100M.

A representative for Levandowski declined comment for this story.

Devin Coldewey contributed to this story.

~~~
dijksterhuis
Thanks!

------
CalChris
I’m not a Levandowski fan (although he was a brilliant engineer) but Travis
Kalanick should probably write half that check.

~~~
agoodthrowaway
I am not sure I would call him a brilliant engineer if he had to steal designs
from Google.

~~~
eigenvalue
It was his team at Google that made the designs in the first place...

~~~
agoodthrowaway
Meh. What commercial product has the guy ever released? I’ve been involved in
many and I can tell you that with each one of them I knew exactly what I would
do differently the next time. I didn’t need an old design because I knew what
we needed to do without having to refer to the old design. If this guy was so
brilliant he wouldn’t have stolen because he’d have known how to make the
design better.

Rather I think he stole the designs for expediency out of greed.

------
bogomipz
>"However, Levandowski personally filed today for Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
stating that the presumptive $179M debt quite exceeds his assets, which he
estimates at somewhere between $50M and $100M."

Could someone with a legal background say what this means in practical terms?
Stating you have assets worth "between $50M and $100M" while declaring
bankruptcy obviously looks absurd on it's face but I'm guessing there's much
more to this?

~~~
Mvandenbergh
Well, $100M is a lot less than $197M. Bankruptcy doesn't mean "out of money"
it means that you have debts that you have no way of paying. I would expect a
bankruptcy court to force him to liquidate almost all of that $100M to pay the
judgement. I don't know if an arbitration judgement like this can be
discharged through bankruptcy, some judgements and penalties cannot.

~~~
lokar
Also, he probably has other debts, and this process will sort out who gets
what (since not everyone can get the full amount they are owed).

------
ryanjodonnell
Glad to know you can’t steal work from your employer and get away with it

------
tozeur
A friend of mine heard his personal attorney speak at a law school class. Even
his attorney thought Anthony was a “jackass” for stealing the IP; his defense
fell on him being an engineer who, at the end of the day, just wanted to build
cool shit and wasn’t malicious.

~~~
nathanvanfleet
Just a regular guy with assets somewhere between 50 and 100 million dollars.

~~~
jgalt212
well, multiples of that before this settlement was announced.

~~~
loeg
No, those are pre-settlement. He's now insolvent. The article touches on this
at the end.

~~~
ethanwillis
Not if he bought a mansion in Florida early on.

~~~
Buge
That's an asset, right? So it would be part of the $50-100M

~~~
toomuchtodo
Primary residence in Florida is shielded from bankruptcy and creditors. Also
retirement accounts (both IRAs and 401ks). Lease your expensive ride and
you’re mostly judgement proof.

~~~
caf
Can you shield additional liquid assets by installing solid gold toilets in
your Florida mansion?

~~~
jjeaff
Probably, it is not uncommon for people to dump large sums of money into
renovations to their property before a bankruptcy.

Although I would imagine if it was very egregious, like $1m toilets when
essentially no one else has anything reasonably close to that, that a judge
would probably strike that down and require you to liquidate it.

------
markdown
> Ron settled last month with Google for $9.7 million.

Smart guy.

~~~
zsandwich
He works for Uber. They paid his bill.

~~~
jjeaff
So did lewendowski when the event in question took place.

They are technically on the hook for his too but they will definitely try to
argue that since an actual crime took place, their indemnity only goes so far.
And I'm sure there is some language to that effect in their policies as well.

------
zsandwich
What the case was about is employee mobility, competition, and the onerous
employee agreements with secretive and punitive arbitration clauses that Big
Tech forces their employees to sign. So yes, Anthony may have lost his case
but that’s because all employees - especially high prized ones like him - are
forced into these agreements and play on an uneven playing field. Thankfully
there have been recent improvements in easing these when it comes to sexual
harrasment, of which Google is a major violator and leading example, but don’t
kid yourself the problem is not solved. In all other respects all tech workers
are subject to these super stringent employment terms and secretive
arbitrations controlled by the tech giants. And if they can try and destroy a
big deal employee like Anthony like this, what hope is there for the average
tech worker.

~~~
joshuamorton
What?

This has nothing to do with arbitration. Levandowski was sued for IP theft
(and faces criminal charges for the same)

------
philshem
Some backstory (2018)

[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)

~~~
0xcafecafe
Good read. This made me chuckle

"Even the Levandowskis’ nanny assumed a minor role in the drama, when she
filed a multimillion-dollar suit of her own, claiming that Anthony had been
emotionally abusive to her, and that he had a drawer that was filled with sex
toys. (The lawsuit, which offered no evidence of her claims and contained
multiple factual errors, was eventually dropped.)"

------
misiti3780
I obviously can do the math, but is there anyway this guy is not financially
completely ruined now? I kinda always assume when you get into the 100M+
range, you can fuck up but still not go to zero (aka you have houses, cars,
land etc that google can claw back)

------
xxcode
He can easily get a job that pays 10M a year

------
xxcode
Peanuts

~~~
bagacrap
I'd happily take some peanuts if you have any to spare

------
gregjw
Oof.

------
brutopia
Bit unrelated, but could somebody highlight the comma splices mentioned in the
comments section? As a non-native english speaker, I can’t notice anything out
of the ordinary.

~~~
archeantus
“ However, Levandowski personally filed today for Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
stating that the presumptive $179M debt quite exceeds his assets, which he
estimates at somewhere between $50M and $100M.”

I’m not an English expert, but I am a native speaker. Although the above
sentence is understandable, when you look at it closer the sentence structure
is a bit wonky. Anecdotally, I don’t like starting a sentence with “However,”,
and this article has that twice. I think it is that kind of style where the
author is making a statement and then forcing you to hold it in memory, so to
speak, is what the commenter is referring to. It gets mentally taxing to keep
track of all of the threads.

~~~
nilkn
While that style might not be to everyone’s taste, that sentence definitely is
grammatically correct and does not have any comma splices. Personally I don’t
find it that awkward either.

~~~
angry_octet
Is is really meaningful, as a defence, to say a sentence is grammatically
correct, if the meaning is unclear or the style is wretched?

Instead we should ask, if a sentence is unclear and wretchedly wrought, what
purpose is served in pointing out its grammatical correctness? That is like
admiring a two legged horse.

The author was no doubt under a tight deadline and just bashing it out with
even less thought than I give to this post, but nevertheless has an MSc in
Journalism (how is that an MSc?) and a BA, and can surely do better.

~~~
govg
Misquoting Futurama, "they are technically correct, the best kind of correct."

------
justicezyx
I call this justice well served.

~~~
atonse
Only if he actually has to pay.

~~~
dereksine
..."Levandowski himself may not have to pay the money personally, as this sort
of liability may fall to his employer depending on his contract or other legal
quirks."

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
You can see immediately below that he personally filed for bankruptcy. Now
when rich people do this it doesn't always mean the same thing as when
ordinary people do it, but it seems unlikely that he would need to take that
step if he had no liability.

~~~
dereksine
Chapter 11 buys more time.

Don't forget he still has criminal charges pending:
[https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-uber-self-
drivin...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-uber-self-driving-car-
executive-indicted-alleged-theft-trade-secrets-google?mod=article_inline)

------
person_of_color
I can't believe he made that much as an individual contributor at Google.
#goals.

------
maerF0x0
Seems out of proportion given 1) Google was willing to settle for <$10M with
Ron and 2) Equifax only paid ~2x for leaking pretty much 50% of the SSNs in
the country[1]...

[1]:[https://threatpost.com/equifax-settles-class-action-
lawsuit/...](https://threatpost.com/equifax-settles-class-action-
lawsuit/151873/)

~~~
projektfu
The difference is that Lewandowski realized the value of the IP with the sale
of the company. If the jury decides trade secrets made up x% of the company,
he owes that percent of his proceeds. IMO, IANAL.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Arbitration panel, in this case. The real answer is that the legal system is
not set up to keep a globally consistent harm_done->liability map. For one
thing, the contents of employment contracts may lead to different damages in
otherwise identical circumstances. For another thing, even if the
circumstances were identical, it would be inefficient for justices to have to
search every other possible case to make sure they are consistent with each
other one. The law is a fuzzy rule system, not a perfect logical construct.

~~~
projektfu
True, it shows that even highly valuable employees are Davids (or Sauls)
against a corporate Goliath.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Not sure the relevance of the metaphor. In this case it seems like Goliath
ended up stepping o David's head.

~~~
projektfu
The winner isn’t predetermined.

------
innagadadavida
Are ML model parameters copyrightable? Should it be? To me, it looks like that
is the only claim google has - rest of the algorithms are all open sourced
already.

Honestly, I don’t see much difference between this and the oracle java case.
Google can’t have it both ways.

~~~
KarlKemp
This case involved technology that even hardcore critics of intellectual
property rights would presumably consider "classic" patents. The LIDAR
hardware was one of the major items, IIRC.

I don't remember anything about ML and especially not model parameters. But,
yes, I'm somewhat sure those would meet the criteria for copyright.

What's far more interesting is the copyright status of the _output_ of ML
models: does it meet the required "creativity" when it's just the product of a
computation you set up once, a long time ago? And is the ML model's creator
still close enough to the product to be considered its author? If your text
generator was trained on Wikipedia data, are the wikipedia authors co-
creators? This stuff is going to be fun...

------
xrd
It's been amusing to hear his story. Starting a church/religion was my
favorite part.

I bet Google and a bunch of other companies are excited about the message this
sends to other arrogant engineers who might be considering leaving and
building new companies with ideas developed at their prior places of
employment. That precedent is worth billions if not trillions.

~~~
anrmq7
This is harmful to innovation in the Bay Area. Big Tech eats up all the talent
and now sends the signal that they can’t leave. The trial hasn’t even begun
for this case - I think they’re still debating what constitutes a trade
secret. This seems personal. Google got angry that one of their “own” went to
a competitor.

I bet this will make companies think twice about acquiring startups founded by
Google employees.

~~~
dodobirdlord
> This seems personal. Google got angry that one of their “own” went to a
> competitor.

He literally copied gigabytes of work onto hard drives and stole them.

------
nobbis
Google's SDC efforts are rooted in Anthony's work: he helped kickstart the
entire industry. Mark Harris broke the story here:
[https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial-
intelligence/t...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial-
intelligence/the-unknown-startup-that-built-googles-first-selfdriving-car)

I don't know what IP is in question, but it seems to me that he had been
working in AVs longer than almost anyone in the industry, so it's believable
that Uber was valuing the Otto team's accumulated experience, rather than any
stolen ideas.

~~~
tassl
This is completely misleading. Even if his first company was the first self
driving vehicle project ever (which was not) or the only piece in the puzzle
(which it wasn't either), there were other cofounders of that startup. This is
glorifying one person using other people's work.

~~~
nobbis
It was the first self-driving car project to cause established companies to
take notice and start investing heavily, kickstarting the industry, which was
my point.

Other co-founders, yes, but Anthony was overall product lead. The article goes
into detail.

