
Lyft Accuses Former COO of Stealing Confidential Docs Before Joining Uber - bruceb
http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/05/lyft-sues-travis-vanderzanden
======
alain94040
Read the complaint, it's pretty bad. Dude googles how to copy his work email
from gmail, and also copies hot corporate documents to his private dropbox the
day he quits for Uber. All the while emailing the Lyft founders saying "I
still love you like brothers".

I try to avoid people and companies with poor ethics.

~~~
tedks
I think at this point, it's clear to me that Lyft is the one with poor ethics.

I would literally never have heard of Lyft without all of their accusations
against Über. Über is trying to poach drivers; Über is getting our C-level
guys to baldly incriminate themselves and then jump ship to Über; Über is
stealing our cookies; waaaah waaah waaah Uber.

Honestly, I find it impossible to believe the Über team is both this B-movie-
level evil, and stupid. It's really, really hard to believe that a COO of a
successful startup wouldn't know how to copy documents that are on his OWN
MACHINE (the private dropbox documents).

So, since Lyft obviously gets assloads of free publicity from all these
accusations, and since I've never seen an actual court judgment against Über
reported, I somewhat doubt that these are actually true, or at least not
actually provable, since like others have said, if Lyft could successfully sue
Über over any one of these things, the media would have even more of a field
day than it's having now.

So okay. Über stole your drivers, your COO, shot your dog, made a mean face at
you, whatever. Prove it in court. Until then I'm done with this bullshit. And
I'll be happily using Über.

(The only thing that Über has _really_ done that's unethical is be as brutally
capitalist as they can, but I find that a difficult accusation to level
against them since it's not like any other company is doing exactly the same
thing. That's a systemic issue, not a local one.)

Edit: You know, if Lyft was running a black-hat PR campaign against Über, it'd
be _just like them_ to shill on HN. Thanks for the downvotes, Lyft.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
Uber completely ignored Philadelphia's telling them that launching uberX there
is illegal, then let their own drivers get their personal vehicles impounded
in a game of chicken.

Yet Lyft has the poor ethics. Right.

Considering there is serious civil harm arising from making up a lawsuit, do
you have any evidence that Lyft's allegations are false or do you just flap
your gums because you like Uber more? It never ceases to amaze me how people
in all considerations can pick a side and stick to it, ignoring all data that
doesn't fit their narrative. You like Uber more, nobody is begrudging you
that. Turning your preference into calling Lyft unethical and the rest of your
comment is, quite honestly, stupid.

~~~
jimbob23213
Lyft launched in Miami first, which is a market that Uber didn't enter because
driving there without a taxi license was a criminal offense, not merely a
fine. Uber has always launched in cities where they knew they could defend the
first drivers on the road without long term consequences for those drivers.
Lyft launched in Miami without regard to the long term consequences for those
drivers that started riding with them. I don't think Uber entered Miami for
months and only well after informing the city of Miami that they are going to
enter the market if the city doesn't start enforcing their own laws. I don't
know about you, but Lyft is no saint either and probably worse if they're
willing to put drivers in a position where they end up with a criminal record.

------
roymurdock
After seeing a lot of negative press on Uber and its questionable tactics, I'm
wondering the following:

Is it necessary for Uber to be so cutthroat, sneaky, and brutal to survive in
the space they've carved out for themselves, or is this just a reflection of
the poor character of the management team?

~~~
forrestthewoods
Well I think for starters they haven't carved out a space for themselves. They
were the first to a new space made possibly by recent advances in technology,
but that's it. Furthermore as technology continues to march forward it's only
going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the same space.

So from that perspective yeah, yeah I guess they do have to be cut throat to
survive. The service they provide is not far off from being commoditized. It's
easy and cheap for competitors to step in and drive prices down. Will be very,
very hard for Uber to secure their space. Honestly the only thing that will
make it possible is the same time of legal protection that taxi companies have
had.

Oops.

~~~
mbca
> [I]t's only going to become easier and easier for competitors to enter the
> same space.

Not going to happen. Those "regulators" they decry so loudly? I'm sure they
have plans to buy a few once they get big enough and use them to put barriers
in place to put a stop to any competitors. Combine that with their size (and
thus their ability to undercut any new competition), and I don't see anything
but an Uber monopoly on the way.

------
patio11
Complaint paragraph 47 alleges that use of Evernote constitutes a breach of
confidentiality and fiduciary duty, which is one of those things that strikes
me as "legally pretty defensible" and "totally disastrous when juxtaposed with
how knowledge workers actually work."

Edit: Actually, on re-reading, they appear to mean not "Evernote constitutes a
breach" but "We accessed his Evernote and his state of mind, as recorded in
it, constitutes a breach." (Eek.)

~~~
x0x0
I wonder how they accessed his evernote, if it was legal to do so, and if not,
whether anyone will be prosecuted (the last question is certainly no.)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Evernote client syncs locally. They performed forensics on the filesytem, and
the note was more than likely cached locally on disk.

Weapons-grade stupid on VanderZanden's part.

------
refurb
Every company that supports employees using their personal devices (phones,
tablets, etc) as work devices should read the complaint carefully.

If it's the companies phone, they can request it be returned. VanderZanden was
using his personal phone while at Lyft. When he left, he just sold it. The
problem is that it puts Lyft in an awkward position: they are requesting he
turn over his personal device so that they can analyze it to confirm no
confidential information remains.

 _" VanderZanden provided no explanation as to why he sold his phone.... it's
an odd thing for a high-net worth individual to do..."_

I'd probably tell them to stuff it too, it's my phone.

Also, I find it interesting that the complaint is also against one to ten
"unnamed defendants". I didn't know you could do that.

~~~
jcdavis
This is why Exchange support on iOS (not sure about Android) allows remote
wipes, and you better remove the account before you quit

~~~
gamblor956
Android too, but android has mtm software like nine or touchdown that act as
virtual devices for exchange access. If the exchange account is terminated,
only the virtual device gets wiped.

------
Bud
Hmmm. Looks like someone is flagging this item to knock it off the front page.
Any bets that it's Uber-affiliated folks?

Not really cool behavior.

------
bruceb
How many of these suits are successful? I know often an agreement is reached
at it is not public. It would be great to know.

------
refurb
If you read the details of the complaint, it gets interesting.

They claim he failed to return his computer, but if you read points 42 and 43,
they first asked him on Aug 18th (6 calls and emails went unanswered) then
actually retrieved it the next day. Really? If the guy is busy he may not have
made it a priority.

------
minimaxir
Items 87-93 of the lawsuit are very interesting. They imply that VanderZanden
convinced other Lyft employees to abandon ship to start a startup...but then
they join Uber instead?

Item 27 is probably the first legal usage of "acqui-hire" ever.

------
cheepin
Isn't this exactly what non-compete clauses were meant for?

~~~
colinbartlett
No, this is what confidentiality agreements are for. Which the defendant
allegedly signed.

Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable,
particularly in California.

~~~
quaunaut
> Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable

Is this true? I'm not doubting, I'm just wondering why. I know a lot of people
in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's
game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were
enforceable.

~~~
mikeyouse
Non-competes (including out-of-state non-competes) are automatically void in
California except in very specific circumstances.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
compete_clause#California](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
compete_clause#California)

~~~
shalmanese
Notably, acquisition, which is what happened to VanderZanden is one of the few
cases non-compete is enforceable, meaning they either didn't bother imposing a
non-compete upon acquisition or it was only for 1 year and he ran out his
term.

------
mkal_tsr
Just a continuation of the uber-lyft saga of ethics and fair business
practices ... ahahaah, sorry, I can't type that with a straight face. Seeing
these crowd-sharing services eat each-other is both hilarious and sad. The
underhanded tactics, the smearing, etc., just sad this is the state of affairs
for companies that receive millions and millions in funding. I guess it'll be
good for their legal department's bank statements, so that's somethin.

------
elastine
Uber is proving to be one very shitty organization.

------
toephu2
how did they trace the searches back to his computer? Did they have some key
logging software? or if he was using HTTP it was easy to trace back to his
local IP? if he was searching w/ HTTPS is it true they probably couldn't trace
the searches back to his computer? (assuming he cleared his history+cache)

~~~
ceejayoz
Might be something so mundane as forgetting to clear his history on the
company laptop (or they restored it - they mention computer forensics a few
times).

~~~
toomuchtodo
If your browser does't encrypt your cookies, they sitting on the disk
unencrypted at rest, easily read right of the filesystem. You could then use
those cookies to gain access to the respective sites/services/accounts they're
tied to.

------
3327
wow this is ugly heavy duty stuff. I bet that data is more valuable then the
settlement. Data like that on your competitor is priceless specially at this
level of competition.

------
jonsterling
I hope they destroy each other!

~~~
kstrauser
Me too. I despise how Lyft and Uber servers always take my request without
offering stupid excuses why they can't come to where I'm at, unlike the cab
companies. I hate that they never have a problem billing my credit card,
unlike yellow taxis. And I especially dislike that I can usually get an
estimate of my fare ahead of time, so that it's not in the driver's best
interest to take me from SOMA to North Beach via Daly City - unlike the
cabbies.

I'm sorry, but I just can't have this conversation non-sarcastically. Both
companies offer _so_ much better service than their predecessors that I can't
understand the desire to go back to the bad old days.

~~~
stormbrew
As someone who lives in a city that doesn't yet have either, it really
frustrates me that they (but mostly Uber) keep pulling this shit, precisely
because I'm stuck in the bad old days and I have tasted the new, but they're
poisoning this well really severely right now.

Uber in particular is the most likely to make an entrance here (they're
hosting driver registration right now, but the bylaw situation is murky at
best) and I'm really worried that if they get shut out for some of the
bullshit they pull it'll kill the regulatory framework for other entrants for
a long time.

~~~
jonsterling
Yep. As much as commenters want to paint me as just anti-innovation, I really
do want an end to the taxi monopoly. The difference is, I don't want a
different taxi monopoly, and I do not like to support two robber-baron
startups who essentially consider themselves not necessarily beyond the reach
of the law, but simply more important than the law.

