News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski. Parent comment

Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by georgespencer on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @03:20PM (#14447745)
> didn't this whole thing start when a vendor sent an e-mail to Google that was intended for Uber, and the contents of the design in that e-mail were sufficiently similar to Google's designs that Google started this process.

Yes.

> Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP?

It may well be, at trial, in court.

> Am I remembering or interpreting the story incorrectly?

No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true to the extent required for a civil case.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by Pyxl101 on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @03:25PM (#14447796)
> No - but it still has to be demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence required in a criminal case. The standard of evidence required in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence". This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than untrue (ie >50% chance).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponde...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by georgespencer on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @03:29PM (#14447831)
Oh weird I thought this was a criminal case. Thanks!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by rlanday on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @03:37PM (#14447891)
Levandowski may indeed be facing criminal charges (separate from the civil case against Uber), hence his unwillingness to testify.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by vkou on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @03:23PM (#14447776)
Since it's a civil case, won't it only have to be demostrated to be more likely then not? I thought 'beyond reasonable doubt' was only the bar for criminal cases.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by georgespencer on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @03:29PM (#14447832)
Yes my bad!
[ Parent | on HN ]