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

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.

Comments

Re:Levandowski, Lewinsky, Lebowski

[TWX]

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

And what does that mean?

[HangingChad]

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.

Re:And what does that mean?

[phantomfive]

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.

Fired for -getting caught-

[david.emery]

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.)

His motorcycle fell over again

[Lije Baley]

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.

5th for Documents

[Infiniti2000]

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.

Re:Where's the money?

[ytene]

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

Where do I get redundancy terms like that?

Poison fruit

[goombah99]

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

Re:Poison fruit

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:Poison fruit

[TWX]

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.

Re:Where's the money?

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Where's the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Where's the money?

[HornWumpus]

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