Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber Fires Executive Accused of Stealing Google's Self-Driving Car Secrets (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the you're-fired dept.

According to The New York Times, Uber has fired Anthony Levandowski, the former head of its self-driving car project who is accused of stealing some 14,000 documents from Google's Waymo and using that information as the technological basis for Uber's self-driving cars. TechCrunch reports: During the court proceedings, Levandowski exercised his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing testimony or handing over evidence regarding his use of proprietary data from his time at Google. Uber had previously warned that Levandowski could face consequences for his lack of compliance with his employment requirements at the company. Uber confirmed via a spokesperson that Levandowski was terminated following months of the company attempting to have him comply with and assist its own internal investigation into the matter, and had set a clear deadline for him to do so. Uber also noted that Eric Meyhofer, who stepped in when Levandowski was removed from his role leading ATG in April, will continue to lead the team and take over Levandowski's direct reports.

57 comments

  1. Levandowski, Lewinsky, Lebowski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody starting to see the similarities?

    1. Re:Levandowski, Lewinsky, Lebowski by TWX · · Score: 2

      Not really. I mean, one attempted to appeal to someone in a position of pretty high authority, and the other was Monica Lewinski.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re: Levandowski, Lewinsky, Lebowski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed that you are mentally challenged. Was that what you meant?

  2. AFTER IT PURLOINED THE GOODS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very TRUMPIAN of it!

  3. Now go after Uber. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they knew the deal all along.

    1. Re:Now go after Uber. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet they knew the deal all along.

      Well of course they did.

      Levandowski figured that if he just left Google and went straight to Uber it would look suspicious. So he cooked up a scheme to start his own company and then sell it to Uber. How long was it from the time Levandowski left Google, started Otto and then sold Otto to Uber? A few months at most? It seems pretty obvious that Uber was in on the scam from the beginning.

    2. Re:Now go after Uber. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet they knew the deal all along.

      Well of course they did.

      Proving that belief, on the other hand, may be difficult unless/until Uber makes the Otto acquisition documents available for review.

    3. Re:Now go after Uber. by TWX · · Score: 1

      Why would Google or Alphabet or whatever they're called have to prove that Uber conspired? They may well be able to get injunctions against Uber's use of the stolen technology and require Uber to prove it, which probably would mean having to fire the entire team, scrap the entire project, destroy all of the project's documentation and equipment, and starting from scratch.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. WHY NOW!?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be a cover-up!!!!!!

  5. And what does that mean? by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would that mean Waymo would be free to pursue criminal charges against Levandowski? How does this substantively change how the litigation moves forward? Seems more like Stall Theater to me. We fired that guy for not cooperating in a lawsuit we didn't want him to cooperate with in the first place.

    That makes no sense.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:And what does that mean? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Would that mean Waymo would be free to pursue criminal charges against Levandowski? How does this substantively change how the litigation moves forward? Seems more like Stall Theater to me. We fired that guy for not cooperating in a lawsuit we didn't want him to cooperate with in the first place.

      That makes no sense.

      Levandowski took the fifth when asked to testify in court. The court ordered Uber to do everything in their power to convince Levandowski to testify. Uber had to threaten him with the strongest punishment they had available, terminating his employment. They threatened, he didn't comply, they had to carry out their threat.

      That's one perspective, anyway, and the one that Uber is presenting to the court. They did what they could, so they can't be held in contempt. There are other possibilities, but I'll leave those to others.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:And what does that mean? by Software · · Score: 1

      Waymo isn't a prosecutor and cannot file criminal charges - only the district attorney (or US attorney for federal cases) can do that. Waymo has always been free to file a report with the police or FBI. Levandowski pleading the Fifth means that he won't implicate himself or face perjury charges.

      I think this will delay the litigation slightly while the judge leans on Levandowski to produce the documents in question.

      What would be interesting is whether Levandowski will be granted immunity from criminal charges, in which case his Fifth Amendment rights will no longer apply. He will have to testify about all the shenanigans he's been up to (if any) and can still face civil penalties. If he lies, he may face perjury charges.

    3. Re:And what does that mean? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It's in response to this story. Uber had to 'return' stolen files. If one of the employees who had files refuses to return them, then that employee needs to be fired. The employee can't be forced to turn them over, because that would be self-incrimination.....however, Uber needs to prove that they've gotten rid of those files and won't be using them anymore. IANAL but that is my understanding.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:And what does that mean? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you really see criminal charges as being very likely here?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:And what does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really see criminal charges as being very likely here?

      That's not the point. You can only take the 5th because you fear criminal charges.

    6. Re:And what does that mean? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      There was some perceptions of the timeline that Levandowski was in discussions (had emails ) with Uber prior to leaving Waymo.
      It could be implied (and will be argued by Waymo) that Levandowski's founding of Otto was a red herring with the intended goal of Uber acquisition bringing stolen Waymo code with him.
      It does not change the fact that Waymo will still be able to hit Uber with a Cease and Desist order for the Uber self driving technology. Uber will be years behind to rewriting the code free of Waymo intellectual property. No matter how it resolves, it pulls Uber out of the game long enough to make it irrelevant considering their labor relations nightmare and lack of profitability.

    7. Re: And what does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.
      A person can file criminal charges. The procedure is deftly hidden by obtuse language in statutes... But it is not forbidden.
      Ask ask an assistant DA to put into writing why he won't prosecute and they avoid you like the plague.

      For example ... Raise a fraud allegation to Gavin Miles in King's county (Brooklyn) and he will not put into writing his reasons to not prosecute because if you saw them the reasons are ridiculous.

    8. Re:And what does that mean? by SLi · · Score: 1

      It's more nuanced than that.

      My take, after having read the court documents, is that Uber would not have wanted to fire Levandowski, but the court effectively compelled it to.

      The issue here is effectively a discovery dispute. Discovery is a process that happens early in a lawsuit where the parties get to request relevant documents from the other parties, as well as (in some cases) take depositions of the other parties, i.e. get them to answer relevant-to-the-lawsuit questions under oath. Here, Waymo sued both Uber and Levandowski, and requested that both produce certain material related to the allegedly stolen files, and the court has ordered Uber to produce that material.

      However, Levandowski believes that his testimony and production of any documents (therefore admitting to possessing them) would subject him to criminal charges. In such cases, the Fifth Amendment allows him to refuse to cooperate ("the right to stay silent"), and he has relied on that right. In a civil case, that would be grounds for an "adverse inference", meaning that since you refuse to cooperate, you will most probably lose; essentially, the Fifth Amendment only protects against criminal charges, but allows withholding information relevant to criminal charges in a civil context if you are willing to take the civil consequences.

      Only Levandowski allegedly possesses some of the requested documents. However, there's a twist: Levandowski being employed by Uber means that Uber can, if it is willing, direct Levandowski to provide those documents, essentially making it a part of his job to do so. And if Levandowski refuses a lawful directive by his superiors, that would be cause for termination.

      Now, why would Uber direct Levandowski to provide the documents? Easy. When the court compels discovery, Uber has to provide documents that it has access to. This includes the cases where it has to direct an employee provide them. Uber tried to argue in the court that in this case Levandowski's reliance on the Fifth Amendment means that the court cannot compel it to direct Levandowski to provide those documents, but the court ruled against Uber, more or less stating that Uber has to take all measures available to it to obtain those documents from Levandowski, up to firing him if he does not comply (and that the Fifth Amendment does not guarantee not losing a job if you do not cooperate). And that is what happened.

      So, I believe Uber did not want to fire Levandowski and Levandowski did not want to be fired by Uber, but essentially the court compelled Uber to do that unless Levandowski cooperated with discovery.

    9. Re:And what does that mean? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Levandowski took the fifth when asked to testify in court. The court ordered Uber to do everything in their power to convince Levandowski to testify. Uber had to threaten him with the strongest punishment they had available, terminating his employment. They threatened, he didn't comply, they had to carry out their threat.

      Well, to me, it seems that Uber wants to fire Levandowski in the first place once they have been caught (sued). Why would a company want to hold/employ someone who is involve in a law suit, especially the law suit is about the product involved with the person who is leading the development? You may want to fight for the person if and only if you have a clear case that the person did nothing wrong and/or illegal. However, it is not the case here. Uber has been wanting to distant itself from the person, and the court just gave it an opportunity to do so.

    10. Re:And what does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't prove you've gotten rid of something that can be digitally copied. I believe the idea is to see exactly all the data that was copied in the first place. Then any products uber is working on that use technology related to those documents is blocked by the courts as they were part of the ill-gotten goods.

    11. Re:And what does that mean? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This post explains it. The term is confusing, but to the court it is jargon that very much makes sense.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re: And what does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh no. You have a right to not speak about anything you don't want to speak about.

      If a lynch mob is hanging on your every word looking for an excuse to hang you with, you would be fucking stupid to say literally anything.

  6. Fired for -getting caught- by david.emery · · Score: 2

    It's hard to believe Uber didn't know what he was bringing with him (and the legal problems that could cause. Of course, there were also ethical issues, but that's not part of Uber's vocabulary, apparently.)

    1. Re:Fired for -getting caught- by lbmouse · · Score: 1

      Good to see that I'm not alone in getting the feeling the Uber is a sleazeball company with the ethics and direction of a one legged hooker.

    2. Re:Fired for -getting caught- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's unethical about a one legged hooker? Maybe if they decide to charge extra for stump-humping...

    3. Re:Fired for -getting caught- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hookers are more ethical than CEOs. (especially Uber's)

    4. Re: Fired for -getting caught- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is insulting. One legged hookers are much more ethical and honest

    5. Re:Fired for -getting caught- by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid, the school bus drove by a one legged hooker almost every morning, at about dawn. That was one hard working hooker. We were little shits.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Where's the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine Levandowski will be richly paid at some point for keeping his mouth shut and for reducing the amount of liability Uber has in this matter of controversy.

    Uber's likely rationale at this point: "Can't find the documents? Guess the theft didn't happen. We did everything we could to get our employee to fess up, but he wouldn't! See? No theft!"

    I would never work for Uber simply because the entire corporation lacks ethics, top to bottom.

    I also have never paid for or been driven by an Uber driver. I smelled a rat from the beginning.

    1. Re:Where's the money? by ytene · · Score: 2

      You mean, in addition to the $680 Million that Uber payed for Otto?

      Where do I get redundancy terms like that?

    2. Re:Where's the money? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I imagine Levandowski will be richly paid at some point for keeping his mouth shut and for reducing the amount of liability Uber has in this matter of controversy.

      If Levandowski gets away from this with any money at all left in the bank, he's gotten lucky. There's no need to pay him extra to keep his mouth shut.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Where's the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been wondering about that. Nobody ever mentions the $680 Million that Uber paid for Otto.

      Considering the short amount of time from Levandowski leaving Google, starting Otto and selling Otto to Uber, there wasn't enough time for him to actually build Otto into any sort of substantial company, so what exactly did Uber pay $680 Million for? The answer seems fairly obvious.

    4. Re:Where's the money? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      He started with $680 million. We now know why bitcoin price has spiked. He's hiding it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Where's the money? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      He started with $680 million. We now know why bitcoin price has spiked. He's hiding it.

      The payment was in Uber stock shares evaluated at the buying time, I believe. I am not so sure that he has already converted into other forms (unless he did when the law suit was initiated)...

    6. Re:Where's the money? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      As an executive, he had to file a bunch of paperwork with the SEC to sell. Until they fired him, now his hands are free.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. His motorcycle fell over again by Lije+Baley · · Score: 2

    Very sad to see Anthony squander his talent with such a naÃve (at best) move. Navigating the world of business turned out to be a grander challenge.

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  9. We fixed the glitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How won't be receiving a paycheck anymore. The problem solved from your end

  10. 5th for Documents by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

    I don't think his claim on the 5th for the documents will stand. They aren't his testimony and thus aren't protected under the 5th. If pressed, he could get obstruction of justice for it.

    1. Re:5th for Documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the court believes he has the documents and has probable cause, they can issue a warrant to find them. If they can't find them, they can't compel him to produce the documents. He doesn't have to be a witness against himself. That's the fourth and fifth amendments at work.

    2. Re:5th for Documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think his claim on the 5th for the documents will stand. They aren't his testimony and thus aren't protected under the 5th. If pressed, he could get obstruction of justice for it.

      And/or contempt of court for failing to produce the documents. Things are not likely to go well for him. But he does deserve to have his day (or likely years) in court. An audacious attempt to make a lot of money on the work of others seems to have failed.

    3. Re:5th for Documents by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Are his assets frozen?

      If I were in his shoes, I'd be single handedly responsible for bitcoin going to 10k$. Just from the flux of my money going through the system and landing someplace warm and with good banking secrecy laws. Also: I'd have long since bought an ocean crossing sailboat under a bogus name.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:5th for Documents by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      That's not remotely the case. There are many circumstances in which someone can be compelled to testify - in fact, the only time you *can't* be compelled to testify is if it's against yourself. The lawsuit is against Uber. Uber can be compelled to produce documents, and so can the people around them if a court can be convinced. Levandowski isn't Uber. And even if it is against yourself, you can absolutely be compelled to hand over documents and other evidence, even if it proves your guilt.

      Even in a criminal trial, you can be compelled to testify against yourself - you just have to be granted immunity by the grand jury in exchange. This is common in e.g. drug trials, they'll arrest the user and charge him with a felony, then offer him immunity in exchange for (compelled) testimony against the dealer. You have to be careful though, because if you compel testimony about a murder and the guy says "yes I know who killed him, it was me" - you're SOL.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    5. Re:5th for Documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's not remotely the case. Even if you personally aren't on trial, or even charged, you still can't be compelled to give testimony if you fear that it may be used at trial against you at some future date. You don't even have to specify what you're afraid you may be charged with.

      Obviously, if you're granted immunity then "testifying against yourself" doesn't arise, but that's a whole separate issue.

  11. Poison fruit by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It means that anything Uber developed based on the technology is now nullified. Google wins. Uber is just trying to not lose any more

    I wonder why Google didn't fire Eric Schmitt when he stole the iphone as an apple board member

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Poison fruit by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wonder why Google didn't fire Eric Schmitt when he stole the iphone as an apple board member

      Because Eric didn't steal anything and gave it to Google. He may have been aware of the iPhone and its general look and feel, but he took no documents, no software, nothing and gave it to Google.

      At best, all he took was in his head.

      And Apple didn't really pursue it since Apple had the iPhone all tied up in patents (design and utility). Google was certainly aware of the patents and default Android was better for it as Google deftly avoided them. Android's app launcher has been redesigned a few times to avoid the "rounded corners" patent (a design patent consisting of many items. Android has always avoided copying it exactly.).

      That's why Apple never went after Google - there is no reason to since stock Android did not violate any of Apple's patents. OEMs, however, (like Samsung's initial TouchWiz offerings) were vulnerable since they did copy the look and feel and overrode what Google did. It's why the Samsung Galaxy S was said to be an iPhone, yet no other Android device on the market was.

    2. Re:Poison fruit by TWX · · Score: 2

      If you remember the initial commercial Android phone, the HTC Dream sold as the T-Mobile G1 in the US, it was fairly substantially different than Apple's physical design. Slide-open with physical keyboard, four buttons, physical trackball, curved bottom section, plus it was a lot thicker than an iPhone.

      Simply rounding-off corners in-general is probably not enough, and I have to wonder if even using the same arc-length would really be enough.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Poison fruit by Megol · · Score: 1

      Patents using features that had been used in other products years before I'll note. What Apple really "invented" were the realization that style is more important than utility. IMHO of course (well not the patent part).

    4. Re:Poison fruit by Cederic · · Score: 1

      physical trackball

      Fuck fidget spinners, that trackball was all the tactile feedback I ever desired.

      It was smooth and yet textured, truly a wonder to caress. I may need to hunt down my old G1 and have a fondle.

  12. Nothing less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scapegoat

  13. What about the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Levandowski get to keep (at least for now) his Uber stock which was worth (about) $250M?

    1. Re:What about the money? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He's not a big cheese there anymore. So now he's free to sell without SEC notices etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  14. of course they fired him.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they didn't need him anymore. uber got the data, and the now-former employee is the one on the hook for it.

  15. Stupid names by rfengr · · Score: 1

    Uber, Waymo, Alphabet, Otto? How about a fucking real name for a company?

    1. Re:Stupid names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like what? Bob's Automatic Vehicles?

    2. Re:Stupid names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      otto
      auto-matic?

    3. Re:Stupid names by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      Otto is likely a reference to Nikolaus Otto, inventer of the 'Otto cycle engine' also known as the 4 stroke internal combustion engine in most vehicles today.

  16. err by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As well as what Iberia paid for Otto,wasn't there a lot of cash from Google when he left ?
    As well as some stock/shares,or was that part of the Otto/uber deal ?
    I bet he comes out sitting on a few hundred million tucked away somewhere..