
Uber says Levandowski on his own for $180M to Google - megacorp
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-18/uber-says-guilty-engineer-on-his-own-for-180-million-to-google
======
gpm
Uber's lawyers be lawyers and try to save their client $180M dollars,
Levandowski's lawyers also be lawyers and try and save their client from being
totally and utterly bankrupt. It's not mentioned in the article but it's a
safe bet that Google's lawyers are also being lawyers and trying to earn the
company $xxM dollars by forcing Uber to pay whatever Levandowski can't afford
to.

That's basically the entire contents of this article... well except for the
last part which I added. I really wish journalists would actually look into
the legal arguments and comment intelligently instead of just reporting one
sides legal brief as if it was some form of moral argument.

~~~
WoahNoun
>I really wish journalists would actually look into the legal arguments and
comment intelligently

That's what the opinion page is for. I absolutely do not want newspaper
journalists making commentary on legal briefs.

~~~
gpm
Intelligent commentary doesn't have to be opinion, it can be bringing in the
relevant facts.

What court is this in front of? What documents publicly exist (hint: lots of
them) and where can we find them? What rulings has the judge already made?
What legal standards have been cited by the parties? What precedent has been
cited by the parties? What are the relevant past rulings in the related cases?
When can we expect further development.

Instead they've just cited some sound bytes from a few lawyers in a way that
doesn't even acknowledge that there is a justice system that this is working
its way through.

Not to mention this isn't really news... it _belongs_ in the opinion section.
Right now it's basically just repeating the opinions of Uber's lawyers instead
of the opinions of the journalist (except for a small portion where they
repeat the opinions of Levandowski's lawyers).

~~~
gamblor956
It is generally beyond the scope of an article like this to provide a full
case history.

If you want something like that there are professional journals that provide
in depth legal reporting.

~~~
gpm
This comment... is really a reply to my top comment not the comment you
replied to. Whether or not this is in scope has nothing to do with the
discussion of whether or not the report could comment more intelligently
without making it an opinion piece.

A large part of the the point in my top comment could be phrased as "the scope
of this article is so small as to be entirely pointless".

------
dijit
I dislike Uber as a company, I'm still not over susan fowler and the way they
skirt the law in most municipalities is definitely criminal.

However, I have to agree with Uber here.

I work on video games, if I bring some engine code from my current employer to
a new employer that's theft. Anything I made on company time or with company
resources is not mine to take. However taking learnings is totally fine
(because: of course it is) and that factors into things because it's
experience.

If he did this without Uber knowing then he's alone. If Uber knew he might do
it or promoted this behaviour then that vindicates my feelings towards them
and they definitely should be punished as hard as the law allows.

"Take nothing but memories" applies to more than just nature.

~~~
sp332
[https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/levandowski-says-
uber-m...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/levandowski-says-uber-must-
pay-his-179-million-judgment-to-google/)

 _Levandowski claims that Uber was fully aware of the circumstances of
Levandowski 's 2016 departure from Google.... Levandwoski says he cooperated
fully, giving investigators access to his email accounts and personal
files....

Kalanick wasn't concerned. "Uber eats injunctions for breakfast," he allegedly
told Levandowski....

Uber's acquisition terms for Otto included a sweeping indemnification
commitment for Otto employees, including Levandowski.... Levandowski says Uber
specifically promised to protect Levandowski if he was accused of
misappropriation of trade secrets or breach of loyalty to a former employer -
two of the key accusations Google later leveled against Levandowski. The
indemnification clause said that Uber would pay any expenses arising out of a
lawsuit from a former employer, including damages._

~~~
khazhoux
Unclear without additional details. What did Levandowski tell Kalanick?

"Travis, I'm sure if you acquire me, Google will claim non-compete, trade
secret theft, and all that. Will your legal department cover me?"

\--or--

"Travis, I'm going to steal trade secrets from Google and bring them with me.
When Google finds out, will your legal department cover me?"

~~~
sp332
Yeah, I know. That's why I posted it. It's a response to a comment that
couldn't see how Uber could possibly be on the hook.

------
carlsborg
Quote:

"[Levandowski] agreed to plead guilty to trade-secret theft and was driven
into bankruptcy when Google won a contract-breach arbitration case against him
-- he was counting on Uber’s promise when it first hired him to provide legal
cover, known as indemnification, from his former employer.

Uber now says it has no obligation to reimburse Levandowski for the $180
million."

------
tozeur
Reposting an old comment on Levan’s lawyers thoughts:

> 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.

~~~
abraae
Sounds like an egregious breach of attorney client privilege if true.

~~~
wmf
A lawyer's own opinion shouldn't be privileged although it's probably
unprofessional to share it for other reasons.

------
m3kw9
Wait, the then ceo Travis Kalanick was in on this wasn’t he?

~~~
alephnan
What are you suggesting? Corporations exist to shield the owners from the
company's liabilities to a limited extent.

~~~
praptak
Legally, to encourage taking inevitable risks needed to run a business. Not to
shield greedy sociopaths from the social consequences of their unethical
decisions.

------
2ion
One of the reasons why I'm careful to get involved with trillion dollar
companies. A job there may be gainful and prestigeful, but getting stomped
into the mud by an army of ill willing lawyers with infinitely deep pockets
over any sort of workplace invention issue is bound to be a road to ruin.

~~~
ghaff
That can happen when you willfully steal trade secrets.

~~~
perl4ever
I think different people have different moral intuitions regarding that. Some
might consider that trying to keep trade secrets is a zero-sum or maybe even a
negative sum game, from the perspective of society.

Assuming you don't identify with Uber or Google, you might not assign any
monetary value to this episode, and therefore there could be cognitive
dissonance at the weight of "$180 million" and actions taken proportional to
that.

~~~
lostmsu
You can still imagine to do all this research Google paid upwards of $180M to
it's employees.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/lUvyt](https://archive.md/lUvyt)

------
shadowgovt
That seems fair, given that they know that he got $120 million when he left
Google.

