
Waymo filing says Travis Kalanick knew engineer had Google info - janober
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/22/waymo-filing-says-ex-uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-knew-engineer-had-google-info
======
djb_hackernews
Why does the media keep calling Levandowski a plain old engineer? If
Levandowski qualifies as a nameless engineer the title should read "Waymo
filing says engineer knew engineer had Google info." Levandowski is a well
known tech entrepreneur and was before this case, he wasn't just some worker
bee Uber hired to sling code that stole IP from Google before leaving.

It sort of feels like the VW emissions scandal being blamed on "engineers".
No, in both cases they were well compensated, well connected, seasoned tech
executives and knew what they were doing and thought they could get away with
it because of their position (and likely also from experience.)

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
Yeah, I always do a double-take when I read engineer, because I take it to
mean that it was some other engineer, because obviously if it was Levandowski,
they'd have mentioned him by name.

He's literally the protagonist of this whole drama, and they keep referring to
him as 'engineer'. WTF.

~~~
abakker
Antagonist?

------
csours
So to take a kind of backwards view here, are there any consequences for Waymo
if they are incorrect in this filing? Or is this the part of legal wrangling
where you throw mud and see what sticks?

To be sure, there's a great deal of smoke around Levandowski and the Otto
acquisition, and probably some fire as well.

~~~
rayiner
There are consequences, but they're more related to the adequacy of Google's
basis for making the assertion rather than whether it is ultimately correct or
incorrect. Accuracy of representations in filings in federal court is governed
by Rule 11:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11).
Lawyers and their clients can be (and regularly are) sanctioned for violating
the rule. The rule enumerates various requirements, but the gist of it is that
you have to have a good faith basis for any legal argument or factual
assertion you put in a filing. Viewed retrospectively, if you're wrong and the
other side brings a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, you had better be able to
explain that you acted in good faith by conducting a reasonable investigation
and finding information backing up your assertion.

With regards to allegations like the ones here, the backup might be, _e.g._
emails that tend to suggest Kalanick knew about the misappropriated IP, or
even an interview with a witness who said Kalanick knew. After further
discovery that could turn out to be wrong--the emails might not reveal the
full context, or the witness misinterpreted the situation, or, more likely,
there is simply a greater volume of emails or testimony suggesting that he did
not know. That's fine under Rule 11, what matters is that there was some
factual basis to begin with.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I understand you are a lawyer, but _" After further discovery that could turn
out to be wrong ... what matters is that there was some factual basis to begin
with."_ does sound, to the lay person, a lot like throwing mud and seeing what
sticks.

~~~
rayiner
I guess it depends on how you define "throwing mud and seeing what sticks." To
me, that implies a lack of investigation and recklessness as to the truth.
"Your honor, the Defendant cheats on his wife! What's my basis for that
allegation? I mean, it could be true, so let's depose him and find out!" That
will get you sanctioned. In contrast: "Your honor, the Defendant cheats on his
wife! We have a hotel maid that saw a woman enter his hotel room while he was
traveling on business and leave the next morning." That's a plausible
allegation that may or may not turn out to be true, depending on other facts.

------
kcorbitt
This is perhaps the most important claim made by Waymo since the initial
filing. Waymo had already built up a preponderance of evidence that
Levandowski knowingly and intentionally stole their information. There's no
way he's dancing out of that at this point. But up until now, they haven't
provided any evidence or, I believe, made the claim that Uber knew what was
up, which puts them in the awkward position of suing someone (Uber) who may
have had nothing to do with Levandowski's crime. There was lots of innuendo
(Travis Kalanick took many long walks at night with Levandowski, with the
discussions totally undocumented) but no smoking gun. However, if they can
demonstrate to a jury that Uber execs definitely knew what Levandowski did and
ignored it, that's the sort of thing that changes this lawsuit from an
expensive distraction into an existential threat to Uber's self-driving car
business.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>However, if they can demonstrate to a jury that Uber execs definitely knew
what Levandowski did and ignored it

Since this is a jury trial, they only need to demonstrate it beyond reasonable
doubt, no?

~~~
geoelectric
Reasonable doubt is the criminal law standard, and is relatively hard to
achieve since any credible theory by the defense can undermine it.

This is a civil lawsuit, so probably goes to preponderance of evidence. That's
a lot easier--the plaintiff only has to prove it's more likely than not that
the defendant was liable.

Jury or not doesn't really come into it, except that formal criminal trials
(above an infraction, at least) always involve a jury.

------
zitterbewegung
How long does Uber have left? Another post about Uber from yesterday said they
had around a year left of runway.

As an aside: Every day for at least the past month an Uber story talking about
their failings has dominated Hacker News. I strongly believe that Uber's
problems are extremely importantant, and deserve to be on the front page. But,
its really tiring to talk about a company that is stumbling every single day
when we could have posts about other things.

~~~
baq
the mob wants to hear about Uber's problems, the mob upvotes Uber's problems,
so there's a lot of content that the mob wants to read on the front page. wait
a bit for the topic to cool down.

replace the mob with happy users if you wish.

disclaimer: i'm a part of the mob, it's a very interesting topic for me.

~~~
parthdesai
It's only the people in tech who know about Uber's problems. All of my friends
who aren't in tech don't know anything about Uber's problems and use it
regularly. Heck i still use it if the surge is below 1.5 since it's either
Uber or Taxi.

~~~
bogomipz
>"It's only the people in tech who know about Uber's problems."

No it's anyone who reads the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times or
watches Bloomberg too. I'm pretty sure that includes much more than techies.
Uber has been featured on the front page of both of those newspapers and not
just recently.

>"All of my friends who aren't in tech don't know anything about Uber's
problems and use it regularly"

That's purely anecdotal.

~~~
parthdesai
>No it's anyone who reads the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times or
watches Bloomberg too. I'm pretty sure that includes much more than techies.
Uber has been featured on the front page of both of those newspapers and not
just recently.

Uber CEO being fired or Waymo law suit is a bigger story and a lot more people
know about it. But i don't think people will stop using uber because of those
two stories. Compare that to sexual harassment being rampant in Uber which
could cause a lot more people to not use Uber out of ethics.

>That's purely anecdotal.

I didn't say otherwise.

------
seibelj
Hollywood, please wait until this plays out before writing the script and
signing on a big name actor to play Travis[0]

[0] [http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/jennifer-
lawrenc...](http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/jennifer-lawrence-
theranos-elizabeth-holmes)

~~~
maxerickson
I think if they can get Melissa McCarthy they should go for it.

------
maheshp
There's a very good read in HBR today on the fact that Uber's business model
is predicated on illegality. Thought provoking read.
[https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-
regu...](https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regulators-
to-shut-it-down)

~~~
shas3
This is one of the dumber articles I've read on Uber. I don't think the author
has used cabs much and is just theorizing. In a mid-size American city, I've
had cabs cancel on me around half the times I've called them, leaving me
stranded. I've been through an experience where someone with a fake taxi
license fleeced me charging me 3X with physical intimidation. I know someone
who was robbed at gunpoint by his fake cab driver. The author misrepresents
the taxi industry as some sort of a philanthropic order of saints. The only
times cabs have been reliable for me are when going to and from airports.

Uber is fundamentally different from regulated taxis. Also, there's no moral
framework for the taxi-related regulations (medallion, commercial insurance,
etc.). They're both a relic of an age that has passed and a prime example of
regulatory capture.

It is worth noting that the byline for the article states this:

> Benjamin Edelman is an associate professor at Harvard Business School and an
> adviser to various companies that compete against major platforms

I wonder what 'major platforms'.

------
aresant
Headline choice is editorializing - the actual quote "Mr.Kalanick conveyed to
Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should not bring any Google
information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber that he had destroyed
the discs"

~~~
eridius
Headline choice is perfectly fine. Not only is it 100% accurate, but it's also
the germane information that leads to the following statement:

> _This would obviously be a strong piece of support for Waymo’s case, since
> it establishes a timeline in which Uber was aware of Levandowski’s alleged
> actions even prior to finalizing their acquisition of Otto, which would in
> turn mean that Uber can’t claim to be completely separated from
> Levandowski’s actions._

------
nafizh
All this Uber talk is making me dizzy. Yeah, sure, Uber is a shitty company
but there are tons of them. This disproportional attention to Uber is
blindsiding everyone to a lot of them.

Maybe, someone should also check out Lyft for their employee treatment,
company culture, and business practices. Because, apparently, they are the
good guys and a lot of people are switching to them.

~~~
sfilargi
While I do agree with you that a couple of Uber stories everyday with no real
extra info are a bit too much, let's not put everyone in the same basket.

------
cityzen
There is a podcast called The Dollop where one person essentially teaches
another person about a particular subject. They recently did Uber and it was
eye-opening to see just how shady this company has always been. I am not a fan
of Uber but after listening to this I will never use them again.

Podcast link:
[http://thedollop.libsyn.com/271-uber](http://thedollop.libsyn.com/271-uber)

~~~
digi_owl
Basically my impression since i first heard about them.

But many pushed them as just good old American "disrupters" of a "stale"
market.

That is until the first dirty underwear regarding office shenanigans were
aired, and then the twittering classes did a one-eighty in their view of Uber.
And from that point on the company has been circling the drain.

~~~
sillysaurus3
The myth that you can build a billion-dollar business without some shady
dealings needs to die. Startups are usually faced with hard choices if they
want to survive.

Pretending like Kalanick himself endorsed sexual harassment is ridiculous. We
don't know whether he knew, how much he knew, or how involved he was. All
evidence points to "the trail of information stopped at HR."

I think we like to pretend that startups should be completely moral and make
no questionable decisions because of how awful companies have acted in the
past. While it's true we shouldn't let history repeat itself, it's false to
say that merely disrupting a market is worth criticizing. And this is what
disruption looks like.

Balancing morality/ethics with winning is incredibly difficult. You can be an
upstanding person, thrust into the CEO chair, and still screw up. Then all of
your mistakes are magnified to ridiculous proportions and people claim it's a
pattern of behavior that they spotted from the start, but everyone else was
too blinded to recognize. Sound familiar? Not even in Uber's case -- it's a
story that's repeated itself over and over.

The straightforward response is "Well, startups shouldn't act so disreputably
then." I agree that you shouldn't do anything that brings harm to individuals,
nor should you ignore a toxic culture at your company. But refusing to even
try -- to say that if you're not perfectly honest or perfectly moral, that you
shouldn't be allowed to build a company -- is a formula for letting the true
snakes dominate the world. Honest people who make mistakes are better than
assholes with a thirst for power.

But you have to let them be willing to admit that they've made mistakes.
Kalanick has done this.

~~~
ethanhunt_
Ironically the sister-post to your parent post complains about a vampire being
killed in the 19th century, when it's the same mindset that caused that and
that wants to crucify Kalanick.

The five-minutes-of-hate culture and public lynching culture is dangerous and
has to end. In a year some contrarian will post an article on Medium with the
title "Kalanick was unfairly ousted" and it'll be posted on reddit/r/TIL and
the tide will turn as all the people whose opinions are an expression of
whatever made it to the frontpage of their favorite aggregators reverse their
opinion to fit the status quo.

~~~
jazzyk
i am against Internet lynching, but there have been enough scandals and just
plain toxicity coming out of Uber for several years now.

I know it was not quite your point, but idolizing assholes like Kalanick -
"they may be a bit flawed, but they are brilliant businessmen/women", quite
prevalent in the US, ends up in a lot of companies run by sociopathic
assholes.

Leave the fawning to sycopanthic media, please.

------
Fricken
Other articles on this subject note that upon hearing Levandowski possessed
the stolen files, Kalanick advised him to destroy the stolen data and not
bring it to Uber.

------
ishansharma
Now just putting conspiracy theory hat for a moment, but can it be the real
reason behind Travis walking out? Board got to know that this would come out
and got rid of him to do some damage control?

~~~
treyfitty
Large organizations are always making decisions behind the scenes. I wouldn't
call it a "conspiracy theory" in the "tin foil hat" sense. I would just call
it a theory where actors conspired to oust Travis.

~~~
oconnore
I think that's still called a conspiracy theory, but maybe with more
supporting evidence than "aliens stole Waymo lidar".

------
victor22
From over 10 years of using and kinda understanding the taxi industry, a
different leader than Travis could not have entered that market. I'm not
saying he's correct, but it takes a bully to scare a bully.

------
digitalzombie
I'm glad this is happening to Uber.

I do not want such a company to thrive with these type of practices.

I thought they were going to win against Lyft with all these shady practices.
And so I just shrug it off and chalk it up for those dirty companies stepping
on people.

Glad that the public have been more empathic and a conscious on these
disgusting practices. Gives me hope for the future in term of businesses and
higher standards.

~~~
furioussloth
I do not condone all the dirty practices but i always find it amusing how lyft
gets a good guy trophy. Well without Uber being there doing the dirty work of
fighting regulations Lyft would not exist. I would not want Lyft to go away
because it is nice to have that option and competition but I would not wish
for Uber to go down after all the major changes they did in last few months.
Many companies get away with doing far worse. Uber more than redeemed
themself.

~~~
zeroxfe
> Many companies get away with doing far worse.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that Uber should get away with it.

> Uber more than redeemed themself.

Umm... how?

------
toddball
> "Mr.Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski
> should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want
> any Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to
> Uber that he had destroyed _the discs_ "

Emphasis mine. Does anyone else find this to be particularly odd wording for
2016/7? When was the last time anyone here that is tech savvy use multiple
disks for storage of anything? Desktop and laptop hard drives can now hold
multiple terabytes of data and thumb drives now hold in excess of one
terabyte. Plus, most people now use drives not discs. Most laptops don't even
contain disk drives and haven't for years.

I'm probably alone here, but this detail alone makes this heresay seem
suspicious to me. Did anyone else find the mention of multiple discs in 2016/7
odd as well?

------
cityzen
shocker... douchebag CEO with "win at all costs" attitude is trying to win at
all costs.

------
edw
I wonder if the timing of Alphabet's spinning-out of Waymo was driven or
influenced by a desire to, as much as possible, distance Alphabet and, more
importantly, the Google brand from what they knew would become an ugly legal
battle.

------
samstave
in all of this drama, as others have mentioned that the board may have been
calculating the release of travis and perhaps others, all I can think of is
just how complicit and shady everyone else on the board is.

I can doubt they didnt know anything about uber's DNA and how much of a
douche-factory they were running just to make a shit ton of money themselves.

While I think that uber (ride sharing in general) has greatly benefited myself
and millions of others, I cannot think that the board is wholly altruistic at
uber, and I think the whole top pulled shady crap to get where they are.

on the one hand, you want rogue companies to push the boundaries when nimby
and laws which are obsolete are blocking evolution of how we live, but you
also want fairness in how they accomplish this.

its like a Louis CK skit, "of course, but maybe";

Of course, Uber and ride-sharing is a great idea and millions of people
benefit from it existing and it showed how taxi medallion services in places
like NYC were an outdated and corrupt model lining the pockets of a few at the
expense of the many and now a black man can reliably get a ride uptown in
minutes by the magic cab hailer in his pocket....

but ___maybe_ __.... you didnt have to be a sexist, corrupt slimy douchebag to
accomplish this such that your company isnt bleeding talent and the poster
child for sexism in tech and actually managing to one-up zenifits HR debacle
with your own literally worst HR department in history of tech stories...
maybe...

~~~
ithinkinstereo
Bill Gurley has a known reputation and history for being a shady VC. AngelList
was created basically out of Naval's experience getting royally screwed by
Gurley.

------
dontblink
Does Travis leaving now prevent him from returning at a later time as CEO
under opportune circumstances? PR could spin a return if Uber starts failing
and hail Travis as having learned how to lead.

In other words, does anyone think this could be temporary?

------
throwaway29292
I count 4 Uber stories on the front page today. There have been a few every
week since the past few months. Will this sordid saga ever end? I feel this is
like watching a newsreel about the same topics every few days.

~~~
samstave
This is a super annoying sentiment:

* why cant we shutup about snowden already

* stop posting about uber

* plenty of other examples

* get back to talking about [tech topic] that truly is tech

etc...

These are important issues. snowden was critically important to discuss. uber
is important to learn from.

anyone attempting to shut down/stifle/limit discussion or
examination/reflection of topics that stem from, affect, and, largely define,
in the minds of those not in tech, the overall image of tech, should be
regarded as having dubious intentions.

~~~
thieving_magpie
Don't overreact. The person you replied to was just expressing frustration
with a "sordid saga" and questioned when it will end.

It's totally legitimate to feel that way. Conflating it with "stifling" and
"limiting" discussion, then suggesting it has a dubious intentions. That's a
little dramatic.

~~~
samstave
Sorry, I wasn't saying that ___he_ __was stifling or had dubious intentions -
I am saying __ _in general_ __, if one is too oft complaining, this could be
construed...

So, don't overreact to my comment either :-)

It wasn't as heated as may have seemed.

\---

The next unicorn idea is to be able to accurately convey the tone of a
sentiment via text.... maybe all text should be "mood text" and have a font
color demonstrating the tone/mood it was written in ;-)

~~~
thieving_magpie
That's not a bad idea. We'll just have to write like those LARP people.

 _thieving_magpie ponders, then blushes. Slowly looking up he whispers_ "Good
idea sam".

~~~
samstave
___amused and lightly impressed /aroused_ __Thank you __ _masculine yet sultry
voice_ __

------
antisthenes
The cherry on top is the history of eugenics in the US, with forced
sterilizations extending into the 1970's (!)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Compulsory_sterilization)

It's a chilling read, not for the faint of heart.

~~~
xenadu02
Fun fact: The Nazis looked to American Eugenics and race purity laws as an
inspiration. It was only after the horrors of WW2 came out that the US
rejected these policies.

~~~
ouid
that doesn't sound like a "fact". I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just
saying that I don't believe you until you provide a source, i.e. some nazi
expounding on how they never would have had the idea for racial purity if it
hadn't been for america.

~~~
dragonwriter
I took “looked to American...laws for inspiration” not to mean they got the
idea to care about racial purity from America (it was globally a common idea
for millenia before the Nazis, and remains common today) but that, in terms of
concrete policy to realize those pre-existing concernd, the racial laws of the
US at the time were among the sources they consulted for ideas.

~~~
ouid
without any sort of concrete evidence that the national socialists were
actively modeling their policies after US policy, I have no reason to believe
this either. Two countries can have backwards policies without one having been
"inspiration" for the other.

~~~
folk_kilobyte
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics#Origins_in_the_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics#Origins_in_the_U.S._eugenics_movement)

[http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-
Nazis...](http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-
California-2549771.php)

> During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep
> personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists.
> In "Mein Kampf," published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology
> and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is
> today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a
> better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our
> model German Republic, but the United States."

> Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress
> of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he
> told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning
> prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all
> probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

> Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenics leader Madison Grant,
> calling his race-based eugenics book, "The Passing of the Great Race," his
> "bible."

~~~
ouid
Thank you for this!

------
pfarnsworth
Why does this article not mention that when Kalanick found out that
Levandowski had this material, he immediately told him that Uber didn't want
it, and told him to destroy those discs? The Bloomberg article on this topic
said this directly.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-22/ex-
uber-c...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-22/ex-uber-ceo-
kalanick-knew-of-engineer-s-google-info-waymo-says)

~~~
_jal
Perhaps for the same reason you didn't mention the possibility of contempt
mentioned in the Bloomberg article?

There are multiple ways to tell a story. I realize partisans have discovered
that yelling at journalists is a great way to distract from the underlying
story, but it works better on Sunday shouty shows and swampy blogs.

~~~
pfarnsworth
That is less material to the story than the idea that Kalanick wasn't involved
in some conspiracy to steal Waymo's tech. The media wants to propagate the
story that Uber and Levandowski were conspiring to steal Waymo's technology,
but this makes it clear that it wasn't the case, and if there was theft of
secrets, it was Levandowski on his own.

~~~
_jal
The media wants to tell any story that gets attention. Complaining about the
media is a distraction, but at least here there's the amusement of accusing
the media of conspiring to tell the story of a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

The contempt charge is less material to the story you are interested in
talking about, but looks rather important to me. And we don't have proof of
anything - Maybe Kalanick got cold feet partway through. We don't yet have
sufficient detail to know what this means.

Although now that you shine a light on this, it does seem to demonstrate is
that Kalanick went ahead with a key hire who was anteing stolen IP. Call that
what you will, but I wouldn't hire a janitor who did that, nor would knowingly
I work for anyone who would do that. And it is also further recklessness -
even putting aside ethics and legality, who is to say Levandowski wouldn't do
the same thing to Uber if he got a better offer?

~~~
pfarnsworth
I agree that the entire Levandowski mess is completely Kalanick's fault. He
was in completely control when he hired him, and presumably overincentivized
him with a $250 million pay package.

But that's a completely different issue than the original point. The point is
that there was no conspiracy to steal Waymo's trade secrets. There was no
conspiracy to use Waymo's technologies in Uber self-driving cars, who already
had hundreds of engineers and professors working on it for years.

We don't know what the full conversation was between the two of them, but we
do know from the article that once Kalanick knew that Levandowski had some
sort of files, he told him to destroy it immediately and that he didn't want
that to be used by Uber. I think that part is very clear.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Well, Kalanick told Levandowski to destroy the files immediately, _and hired
him knowing that he had taken the files from Waymo_.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that. He's so desperate to win at self-
driving cars that he'll hire Levandowski, even though Levandowski has proven
himself to be shady? He's "telling" Levandowski (with a wink) to destroy the
files, really meaning "keep a copy at home, don't let it ever touch our work
computers, but keep feeding us the information"? Or what?

I guess, at a minimum, the fact that Uber tried to delay this information from
getting into the court case means that it isn't innocent. (Or they're afraid
that it looks bad enough that it's really going to cost them. But delaying
disclosure makes it look bad, too...)

~~~
toddball
> and hired him knowing that he had taken the files from Waymo.

Google also bought 510 Systems, which was the company he founded while still
working at Google. Levandowski proved himself to be shady at Google and Google
not only didn't admonish him, they rewarded him by buying his side project he
created while employed by Google.

Clearly the man is talented enough that both companies decided it was worth
overlooking his past actions. If what was reported today is true, Uber at the
very least admonished Levandowski and told him to destroy what he had taken
and that they had no interest in that material and not to bring it to Uber.

Near as I can tell, the discovery process thus far has demonstrated that none
of that material made its way to Uber. The only documents found reported thus
far were some documents on a single personal laptop of one engineer. If any of
Levandowski's documents had made their way to Uber, the discovery process
would have found at least something given the number of keywords Google
requested be searched for and the number of files searched.

Right now, the only thing that appears in doubt here is if he ever actually
destroyed documents. I agree he's likely culpable, but I still don't see any
reason for Uber to be culpable of anything more than knowingly hiring someone
with a past history of being unscrupulous, that Google also employed knowing
full well he actively unscrupulous in their employ.

It would be mighty ironic if Google was now sued by shareholders for
negligence in how it had previously handled Levandowski.

~~~
_jal
> Levandowski proved himself to be shady at Google

I've missed this part. Have a pointer?

In any case, any shady behavior while at Google may be colorable noise in the
PR battle, but is unlikely to have any relevance in court.

