Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Waymo: Uber Plotted With Former Exec Before He Left Google (axios.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

Ina Fried, writing for Axios: Lawyers for Google's former self-driving car unit showed internal Uber emails Wednesday that it says bolster its case that former executive Anthony Levandowski was conspiring to steal trade secrets before he left Waymo. The parties are in court Wednesday trying to convince a federal judge to halt Uber's work on self-driving cars. In arguing for an injunction, Waymo lawyers argued that Uber and Levandowski devised a plan to come up with a company for Uber to later buy. Uber did later purchase Otto, a self-driving truck company where Levandowski was a founder. "Clandestine plan": "Secretly Levandowski and Uber were planning while he was still at waymo and negotiating a deal," Waymo outside attorney Charles Verhoeven said, siting internal Uber e-mails, including some from former Uber executive Brian McClendon, a former Google Maps head who ran some of Uber's advanced technology operations before leaving the company in March. "There was this clandestine plan all along that Uber and Levandowski had a deal."

45 comments

  1. Warning: most CEOs are backstabbing assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There, I said it.

    1. Re:Warning: most CEOs are backstabbing assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CEO --> backstabbing asshole

    2. Re:Warning: most CEOs are backstabbing assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instructions unclear. Dick stuck in email.

    3. Re:Warning: most CEOs are backstabbing assholes by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Sitation needed.

    4. Re:Warning: most CEOs are backstabbing assholes by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      There, I said it.

      Anonymously...

  2. Cite your sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sitting down? The word I think is "cite" or citing not siting, Charles Verhoeven said, siting internal Uber e-mails

  3. They all do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the stupid ones get caught.

  4. uber is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber is going to get fucked harder than, well, all those women that have been raped by Uber drivers.

    1. Re:uber is fucked by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      The main problem they're going to have (other than paying a big settlement) is that they'll be permanently locked out of the self driving business.

    2. Re:uber is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google created a fake mobile company just to steal APIs from Oracle.

  5. Uber is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber is done this time, it will take some time but Waymo is clearly going to win big against Uber. Levandowski thought he could get away with making the huge deal to make himself rich and he stole from a company smart enough to catch him. Both Uber and Levandowski should spend some serious jail time but I suspect a plea deal is in the works to take down Uber.

    1. Re:Uber is done by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

      Both Uber and Levandowski should spend some serious jail time

      Unfortunately, that never happens. I will be extremely surprised if Uber gets anything even remotely close to the punishment it deserves.

    2. Re:Uber is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What I'd like to know is how Google got hold of internal Uber e-mails. Surely Uber execs weren't stupid enough to use gMail?

    3. Re:Uber is done by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      . Both Uber and Levandowski should spend some serious jail time

      You can't throw a company in Jail. However, as I have said many times over, we should be able to throw everyone involved at Uber in Jail, including all the CxOs and the entire board of directors.

      The fix for corporate malfeasance isn't fining a company, but jailing everyone involved. Oh, and corporate death penalty, by revoking the Corporation's charter. Leave the investors hanging onto worthless stock, and corporate culture will change.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Uber is done by nomadic · · Score: 2

      During lawsuits parties can demand the other turn over relevant documents.

    5. Re:Uber is done by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      During lawsuits parties can demand the other turn over relevant documents.

      And if a judge allows this demand, the other party is obligated to fully and completely comply with the "discovery" request.

      The penalties for violating a discovery demand are severe. Every of the many attorneys I've discussed this with assert that.

      How severe? IANAL, so I don't know, but one friend suggested that it could blow your entire case if you didn't comply, and that fact was uncovered later. I'd also bet that Contempt of Court would also be in the mix.

    6. Re:Uber is done by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      . Both Uber and Levandowski should spend some serious jail time

      You can't throw a company in Jail. ...

      The fix for corporate malfeasance isn't fining a company, but ... corporate death penalty, by revoking the Corporation's charter. Leave the investors hanging onto worthless stock, and corporate culture will change.

      A corporate death penalty is indeed logical and ethical, considering that corps. are afforded the protections of being persons. Unfortunately, I don't think any legislator would ever vote for a bill creating a corporate death penalty. Why? People (the 1000's of worker employees) would lose their jobs in such a case. And people vote.

      There have been cases of operating licenses being revoked, but as I recall, they were probationary with re-licensing being predicated on making some kind of change in practices. Meaning, operations continue, but there are stipulations and a fine.

      Anyone with a clearer or more accurate answer – please correct me.

  6. Siting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clashdot: spelling doesn't matter

    1. Re:Siting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you expect from this web sight

    2. Re:Siting by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, it's misspelled in the article that is linked to. As usual, this was a cut-and-paste- job with no regard for checking anything.

  7. amazing. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    It seems like Uber execs are determined to get sent to jail. I hope the authorities humor them in their quest. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:amazing. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The best criminal enterprises are run out of the Club Fed.

  8. Relaxed code of ethics? by bettodavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After hearing that Tim Cook told their CEO off for their shenanigans, and a significant increase of similar news items, one has to wonder if Uber has a serious problem of dishonesty, starting at the CEO level.

    1. Re:Relaxed code of ethics? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      one has to wonder

      Have they left anything to our imaginations at this point? I thought it was already widely accepted as fact that they've been rotting from the top.

    2. Re:Relaxed code of ethics? by orient · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that obvious for years now? "The law doesn't apply to us" sounds dishonest to me.

      --
      Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
    3. Re:Relaxed code of ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got an email from a friend-of-a-friend about an opportunity to apply for a software dev job there with a good word put in for me. It sounds like they pay pretty well, and I'd like to live in the SF Bay area. But with the ethics shit going on with Uber right now, I'd be more interested in shorting their stock than in getting options.

    4. Re:Relaxed code of ethics? by swillden · · Score: 2

      Wasn't that obvious for years now? "The law doesn't apply to us" sounds dishonest to me.

      I don't think they ever took that position. The position they took was "The law is wrong. We'll charge ahead and show there's a better way, and it will be changed." And I think they're right about that. It appears to be about the only thing they're on the right side of, though.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Relaxed code of ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about others, but I started wondering about their honesty when they said they weren't a taxi company.

  9. Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care if or what they conspired to steal or did steal. Intellectual Property is bad and it's just a matter of time before everyone can have it and use it. At the software level or at the design level. Seeing monolithic corporations argue over the tools they use to abuse and extort the public with laws they (symbolically) helped fashion and practically support, theater for the masses. You should feel bad for cheering this counter-productive anti-liberty nonsense.

    1. Re:Intellectual Property by anegg · · Score: 2

      Is it your position that companies that are developing something like a self-driving car should do so without any thought of compensation? One of the ideas behind the creation of the concept of "intellectual property" is that when someone spends a significant amount of time to create something, they should profit from the time that they have spent. Perhaps you think the government should just hire all scientists and engineers, and then they will work on whatever the politicians think they should? I'm having trouble understanding how you would picture technology moving forward without some kind of intellectual property concept.

    2. Re:Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said that Uber or Google or anyone else shouldn't be compensated. Make a product and put it on the market. People either buy it or they don't. "Intellectual property" is a fallacy that has been created to give people additional rights that they wouldn't ordinarily have.

    3. Re:Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like Levandowski or Uber were planning to just give away the IP they stole. They were using it for their own monetary gain.

      So not only are Levandowski and Uber also part of this "counter-productive anti-liberty nonsense", they are thieves to boot.

    4. Re:Intellectual Property by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      And we did the exact same thing with physical property but I don't see you complaining about that. Do you also believe that I can just walk up to you and take your computer or your phone?

      The only "rights" anyone has are the ones we created, nature is pretty much neutral on the whole "rights" thing.

    5. Re:Intellectual Property by anegg · · Score: 1

      I think there is a distinction between what control over intellectual property is provided by law, and how that control might be abused, and the concept of intellectual property in general.

      Without a concept of intellectual property, how do you propose that Uber, Google, et al. who make products that have easily-copied critical contents keep others from just copying those contents and selling competing products? The amount of capital it takes to develop the easily-copied contents can be considerable, and companies probably wouldn't want to expend that capital for development unless they had a way to know that they could profit from it. How would that work?

    6. Re:Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can physically stop you from taking my phone with all the force created by man. I cannot stop you from copying the 1's and 0's I put on the internet. I mean, not without the government backing me up.

    7. Re:Intellectual Property by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      I don't care if or what they conspired to steal or did steal. Intellectual Property is bad and it's just a matter of time before everyone can have it and use it...

      I must disagree. Intellectual Property (IP) is good, and here I think you are referring to just Patents, so will discuss those. Patents expire after 20 years, leaving the invention thereafter free for the world to use.

      I own several "Utility" Patents (as an expert in a field). Even in this case, with my Patents known, several large companies are trying to steal (use) my inventions, and to leave me with nothing. As an individual, R&D is self-funded and slow, so I've pitched licensing to several of companies. All they do is carbon-copy my patents, hoping I'll die or not notice their thievery. My only resort, then, is to sue them for the money I deserve for inventing the thing that they are making money off of.

      It is crap, and I have held-off on disclosing several marketable inventions because I know the amount of thievery that goes on. Without patents, I would never recoup my investment of time and money. Even with patents, it is a battle.

      It is also stupid of the IP thieves. There have been times where I was inclined to license an invention for a mere $50k, but was bluntly refused when I mentioned licensing. A few years later, they are making $1M's using the core, enabling invention of mine. So, now, I use my only option, and have my attorneys go after them for $100k's of $1M's instead. In the end, it's almost as if they willingly did the R&D and marketing for me for free, because there is now a product on the market rolling in money. They capitulate and cough-up.

      Without intellectual property (patents), creators and inventors would indeed hold-back their inventions, to the detriment of society. We already do, even with the protections that patents afford us. As I said already, I do it in the current climate.

      I just defended "Utility Patents." There are other types of patents – "Business Method Patents" and "Software Patents" – they are entirely different beasts, are inherently bad, should never have existed, and need to go away.

  10. Wow, the cheek! by barc0001 · · Score: 1

    "The judge overseeing the case, William Alsup, challenged Waymo to show evidence that Uber knew Levandowski had downloaded company documents. Verhoeven argued that it can't because Levandowski is asserting his right against self-incrimination and Uber has withheld more than 3,000 documents that might prove the point."

    "Uber's response: Uber says it is has the right to assert privilege on the documents in question. "We're not hiding anything," Uber outside lawyer Arturo Gonzalez said. "The privilege we are claiming is a legitimate privilege.""

    So Uber's lawyers have checked those documents over and determined there is nothing in there, trust them! Nothing to see here folks, show's over, go home!

    1. Re:Wow, the cheek! by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Eh, that's their job, though. During litigation parties have the right not to produce documents that fall under various privileges. Otherwise you could just ask your opponent to turn over trade secrets, litigation strategies about your own lawsuit, etc..

    2. Re:Wow, the cheek! by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

      Yes, Uber are claiming that the "privilege log" of the Otto acquisition is itself privileged as it contains lawyer correspondence. If that isn't knocked down by Alsup it will allow pretty much every corporation to decline to produce privilege logs for investigation of malfeasance.

    3. Re:Wow, the cheek! by swillden · · Score: 2

      So Uber's lawyers have checked those documents over and determined there is nothing in there, trust them!

      That's not what they said. They didn't say there isn't anything incriminating in those documents, they said that they have a right to withhold them because they're protected by attorney-client privilege. The "we're not hiding anything" just means that they believe they have a legal right to withhold the documents, not that there's nothing in them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Wow, the cheek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, that's their job, though. During litigation parties have the right not to produce documents that fall under various privileges. Otherwise you could just ask your opponent to turn over trade secrets, litigation strategies about your own lawsuit, etc..

      Umm... no.

      Typically what happens is the court will appoint a third-party to review all the documents (with a court mandated NDA) and determine which ones are relevant to the case.

      Short of a national security concern, you do not get to refuse.

    5. Re:Wow, the cheek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, when someone says, "I'm not hiding anything," that means there is nothing hidden to discover. There is nothing there to be found regardless of whether finding it is legal or not. Trying to suggest that this is not so and rather indicating that something could be there but has a right to be hidden is semantic bullshit - it doesn't even rise to the level of rhetoric. Bill Clinton telling us it depends on what the meaning of "is" is level crap. They should hire better lawyers who state the second part (we have a right to protect) and not the first ("not hiding") in that case.

  11. this is all so funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's like one big circle jerk

  12. What could happen? by mutantSushi · · Score: 1

    So besides charges/damages vs. Uber executives who pulled it off, and damages vs Uber itself (calculated based on Uber valuation minus taxi business?) is there grounds to bar Uber from operating in the "AI driven vehicle" sector at least for period of time?