Of course, the documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently. Simply saying "I didn't do that" would be insufficient.

So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me.

>documentation from Waymo/Google is also pretty strong apparently.

pretty

apparently

Come on man, you know what angle I'll go for here. Why are you letting that slip? The documentation aka evidence hasn't been seen yet because this case hasn't gone to court. None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light.

I'm happy to hop on the "Uber is evil" train after the case, but it is painful to watch the normally quite rational people on HN fall for such a typical fallacy of justice.

> So he should give up his 5th amendment right to fend off an accusation? I don't think so, that doesn't sound like justice to me.

That's how the 5th amendment works. It gives you the right to avoid self-incrimination, but if you invoke that right and there is other evidence against you then you'd better have some other way of refuting that evidence.

edit: given that even a simple question was downvoted, I can only conclude that there are likely a lot of Google employees downvoting anything that doesn't support Google's side in this dispute.

GOOG-ACCOUNTING-REF:3FX/ASTRO/15/TURFWAR/PROJECTSOROS

Yes it has - or at least enough that the judge found it compelling. I'd speculate it was something like download logs or something. From the reporting of the story I've read there doesn't seem to be anyone arguing that Lewandowsky didn't access the files. The question seems to be about if they made it to Uber.

I any case I don't think that is relevant to the question regrading the 5th amendment, and I suspect that is why you are being downvoted.

Lewandowsky and Uber's interests don't align here. It's pretty easy to see a scenario where Uber loses this case and then sues Lewandowsky.

Of course Uber wants Lewandowsky to give up his rights here. Lewandowsky has some pretty complex trade-offs to consider.

given that even a simple question was downvoted, I can only conclude that there are likely a lot of Google employees downvoting anything that doesn't support Google's side in this dispute.

I'm not sure how you figure that. I'd imagine it would be Uber employee's downvoting you, since your question really shows the big problems Uber is facing.

How would lawsuits work if that wasn't possible? Civil lawyers aren't able to use as many powers in evidence gathering as prosecutors. If uber's current tactic was allowed then every company would hire a designated employee who would have a paper trail of all the company's misdoings lead to him. That employee then pleads the fifth, the company does a shrug, and that's the end of the lawsuit

You're missing the point. The fifth just says that you can't have your silence held against you. Once you answer the question by saying anything at all, then the answers can be used against you, especially if you're lying. I believe he's under oath in these proceedings.

> None of the most relevant facts of the case have come to light.

No, we're talking about the judge's statements, somebody who has seen all the evidence and is speaking as a professional jurist.

And unlike the rest of the Uber accusations, he has gone on record with these statements after seeing some fairly strong documented evidence. The fact that we haven't seen it yet is immaterial.

Note that this is really complicated because this is a civil trial, with a different standard of guilt (preponderance vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), and where invoking the 5th Amendment can definitely be held against you. If this were a criminal trial- and he did it correctly- invoking the 5th Amendment could not be used against him, but in civil case, it most definitely can be used against you.

Many people have their opinion on whether Uber is evil or not, but any employer that forces you to give up a right that Constitution affords you if you're potentially facing criminal charges sounds evil to me.

If the court wants him to testify in a civil case instead of asserting his 5th amendment right, they should find a way to guarantee immunity or that he won't face criminal charges.

OJ Simpson pleaded the 5th too and then later took the stand because the criminal case was litigated before the civil case.

Futher, specific to your question: the court doesn't care one way or another. They'll take his testimony if he wants to give it, and they'll have it even easier to make a decision without. A civil court is also unlikely to be in a position to grant any immunity.

Neither google nor the court care about the conflicts of interest on the defendants' side. I'd even agree with you that at-will employment is evil, and legitimately pleading the 5th shouldn't be enough to fire someone. But specifically in this case, Lewandowsky could be fired even if he were employed by the French government – he could then sue himself, and the findings of the google/uber trial would probably determine his claim of wrongful dismissal.

No, he could give up his 5th amendment right to save Uber money. This is a civil proceeding not a criminal one.

They should have litigated against Mr. Lewandowsky after he founded Otto using documents they claim to know he stole more than a year ago.

It is, but that's a much later part of the case. The present part of the case is complying with discovery orders and considering preliminary injunctions, which does weigh what the parties are claiming and able to offer to support those claims, but does not involvethe kind of formal, detailed presentation and weighing of evidence that will happen at trial.