Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Settles Lawsuit Against Former Autopilot Program Director Accused of Stealing Info, Engineers (electrek.co)

Earlier this year, Tesla filed a lawsuit against its former director of Autopilot Programs, Sterling Anderson, for stealing proprietary information about the Autopilot program and recruiting fellow Tesla engineers to work with him at Aurora Innovation, another autonomous driving company. According to Electrek, "the lawsuit was settled today with Tesla withdrawing their allegations without damages and Aurora agreeing to make itself available for an audit by a third-party to make sure they don't have proprietary information from Tesla's Autopilot program." From the report: Aurora also agreed to cover the cost of the audit for up to $100,000. The startup claims that it had already ordered its own audit, which found âoeno material Tesla confidential information." As for the allegations of poaching employees, Aurora has agreed not to reach out to Tesla employees for a year and to release the names of former Tesla employees who have joined the startup already. You can read Auroraâ(TM)s statement about the settlement in full here and Teslaâ(TM)s further down below: âoeSelf-driving vehicles will save lives, preserve resources, and make transportation more accessible and enjoyable for everyone. Aurora was founded on the premise that experience, innovative thinking, hard work, and a commitment to doing the right thing can accelerate this future..."

40 comments

  1. What am I missing? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2

    When did it become illegal to recruit from a competing company? Did they have some sort of non-poaching agreement? TFA doesn't mention any such thing.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought non-poaching agreements were found to be against the law.

    2. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you join a company, I think you sign something that says "I won't wonder the halls and recruit people for my side company while being an employee for you". It has nothing to do with emailing people once you've left.

    3. Re:What am I missing? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      I thought non-poaching agreements were found to be against the law.

      Such agreements between two companies are generally not legal, but no-compete clauses or similar wording in employment contracts that limits and employee from taking talent with them if they leave are not necessarily covered by that same ruling.

    4. Re:What am I missing? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      But Tesla is in CA, where non-compete agreements are largely void.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:What am I missing? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      One of the few things CA has gotten right.

    6. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And transgender bathrooms.

    7. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fag

    8. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool.

    9. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did it become illegal to recruit from a competing company? Did they have some sort of non-poaching agreement? TFA doesn't mention any such thing.

      It isn't illegal in CA to recruit from a competitor.

      It would be illegal however if Sterling Anderson stole insider information however, which is a legitimate accusation.

      However Anderson agreed as part of the settlement to stop recruiting from Tesla.
      I'm not sure how that works in CA, but in most states an agreed to settlement is generally legally binding above and beyond normal contract law, since the agreement is only preventing a lawsuit being brought in front of the court.

      So even if it's not legal to enforce from a normal contract, since Anderson agreed to the settlement, so long as he does so then Telsa can't move forward with the lawsuit as-is without majorly pissing off a judge.

      That accusation by Tesla would not previously had held any weight if taken to court.
      But the taking insider information accusation would have, and clearly at least Anderson if not Telsa as well did not want to deal with going to court if an agreement out of court could be reached.

    10. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For this discussion let's just focus on things California has gotten right, shall we?

    11. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fucking transgender tried to rape my dad in a bathroom at a urinal. Thankfully he beat the shit out of that dude the second he Grabbed his ass. I think allowing transgender face down in a urinal is ok. But that's it. Society doesn't need to cater to these assholes. If they want to behave in a way that is on the the statistical fringe then they get everything that goes with it. Trans people don't need rights, they don't need pronouns and society doesn't owe them playing "fantasy gender" make believe games. I say fuck trannies.

    12. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mistyped "transgender" The correct word you were looking for is "Politician"

    13. Re:What am I missing? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      But Tesla is in CA, where non-compete agreements are largely void.

      Key word: "largely".

      If you're a low-level worker, they're basically void - non-competes and non-poaching clauses don't apply.

      Non-competes and no-poaching clauses are valid for high-ranking executives though, where it's assumed they are generally intelligent enough to have their own lawyers review and revise contracts and generally have the power on the employment relationship. Plus, the compensation is generally structured around those clauses too.

    14. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet tesla now forced a contract to do just that.

    15. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did it become illegal to recruit from a competing company? Did they have some sort of non-poaching agreement? TFA doesn't mention any such thing.

      From the summary, it sounds like the issue was more about the stealing of documents from Tesla to use at the new start-up.

      So... basically exactly the same thing that Google is currently suing Uber over. I don't know the background to the two cases for comparison, but I bet Uber are wishing right now that they could have had this outcome.

      Reading between the lines, my take on it is that Uber might have had a better outcome if they hadn't already got themselves such a poor reputation for behaving unethically. Google simply weren't willing to give them any benefit of the doubt because they haven't done anything to deserve it.

    16. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An employee who decides to leave company A for company B, can't encourage or contact other employees from company B to leave. A salesperson can't take his customer list with him.

    17. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking a Customer list and poaching are two separate issues, the former is illegal ihile the llater isn't, in ca.

    18. Re:What am I missing? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Non-competes and no-poaching clauses are valid for high-ranking executives though,

      This is not true. Unlike other states, California has a bright-line rule on non-competes. There are some exceptions, but they concern business owners or partners. Also, as of January 1, any disputes concerning non-competes must be litigated in California courts.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    19. Re: What am I missing? by JezmundBerserker · · Score: 1

      Why was your dad in a women's bathroom? And why are there urinals in that women's bathroom???

    20. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is what you are missing: big company sues smaller one to prevent competition. Its done everyday. It was a lie. Tesla is a shit company built from HB1 visa foriegn workers. It is anti American. If you are a patriot you will boycott tesla andvits anti American and anti competition practices.

  2. Found what? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    The startup claims that it had already ordered its own audit, which found âoeno material Tesla confidential information."

    It's a good thing that understand the results doesn't hinge on that one word because that would be embarrassing. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Found what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They found PROPRIETARY documents from Tesla. Documents they should never have in the first place.

      To react this way means that the company found a lot of documents and it is a hell of a lot cheaper to just fest up than it would be if they go to trial. Because in trial even ONE document would mean they will automatically lose the case.

      The bad news for the company is that this means that everything they have done is now "infected" and will probably have to start from scratch without input or help from any former Tesla employees.

    2. Re:Found what? by grahamsaa · · Score: 1

      If Tesla really thought that they had dirt on Aurora, they wouldn't have settled for $100k, which in the world of business litigation is practically nothing.

      --
      Facts have a liberal bias.
  3. "Autopilot" by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I hear "autopilot", I can't get those Airplane! scenes out of my head.

    1. Re:"Autopilot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Surely you can't be serious?

    2. Re:"Autopilot" by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Surely you can't be serious?

      Shirley that joke doesn't quite as well when writt...the hospital! What is it?

    3. Re:"Autopilot" by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Roger, Roger! Can I get a vector, Victor? I picked a bad day to quit posting AC.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    4. Re:"Autopilot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...head

      We see what you did there!

  4. In the future, ISO 8859-1 is discovered by aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And badly translated into a language coding known as âoeUnicodeâ(TM) with something known as âoecopy and pasteâ(TM).

  5. but that's not important right now... by slew · · Score: 1

    Ladies and gentleman, this is your stewardess speaking. We regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused. This is due to periodic air pockets we encountered. There's no reason to become alarmed and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?

  6. Preserve resources? by niaxilin · · Score: 1

    I know that self-driving cars will bring better fuel economy, but I imagine that 1) people will be willing to commute much further distances to work once cars drive themselves, 2) many transit users (bus, train) will go back to single-occupancy cars once traffic jams go away and cars drive and park themselves, and 3) cars will just drive themselves around the block waiting for their owners to return from shopping/lunch/work, to avoid parking fees and hastle.

    This all means MORE resources consumed because of self-driving cars, right?

    1. Re:Preserve resources? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      That isn't really how I see it ending up.

      I think it is more likely that people will lease access to a self drive network of vehicles. These vehicles would be centrally maintained and their locations and pathing would be planned in such a way that you never had more than a couple of minutes wait time for one to pull up.

      Currently cars spend most of their time stationary. If you can increase their utilization then you would have massive efficiency gains.

      Special cases like baby seats and the like will have to be solved some other way. Potentially we would see almost zero crashes in the future which means those seats may no longer be necessary. But that is going to be a long way away.

    2. Re:Preserve resources? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Self driving fleets are a long way off thanks to the idiocy of the various professionally paranoid spy vs spy cults around the world, seeking to hack them and drive people, whom they consider deplorables, right off cliffs, into trains, head ones with buses and trucks or accelerating and looking for a large tree. Take your typical US president, any one will do, from over the last couple of decades, how many of them would kill their those opposed to them if they could get away with it. Make no mistake, the second a politician calls voters deplorables is the second the politician declares they would kill voters who actively opposed the politician if the politician could get away with it. It only takes a few arse holes to spoil it for the rest of us.

      The second an automated vehicle drives into train on purpose, is the second the entire fleet get shut down. You are stuck, automated vehicles need to be within an enclosed controlled environment, a subway for windowless, individual, metropolitan, electric vehicles a cross between public and private transport (leaving the roads above, smaller and far less used, mainly for emergency vehicles, commercial transport and of course regional and rural transport.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re: Preserve resources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already happens,an emp generator and modern car electronics do not mix well..
      Existing road cabling can be used to generate/propogate emp,try taking a steep 55mph corner just as yet car loses all its electronics..

  7. But does this mean by maroberts · · Score: 1

    ...if I am or was a Tesla employee I can sue Tesla for entering into an agreement which limits my opportunities for employment by other companies and therefore puts downward pressure on my potential salary?

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  8. wow! by Filaar · · Score: 0

    This is great information.

  9. Boy have things changed since the 1980s by Orangedog_on_crack · · Score: 2

    No one seemed to have a problem back when Jobs poached several Xerox PARC engineers to recreate the tech he couldnt get the company to give him unrestricted access to everything he wanted for the Lisa and Macintosh products. Of course if crap like the DMCA were around in the 1970s Gates, Allen and Jobs would probably have died in prison and Ed Roberts and Gary Kildall would be billionaires.