News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski. Parent comment

Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by downandout on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @03:40PM (#14447916)
The court can't order a private entity to fire a private employee. They did this because they know they are probably going to lose this case, and it will be harder for Waymo to show that Uber's conduct was willful now that they have fired the main person involved. They want to be able to say "as soon as we were sure that some of this was stolen, we fired the person that did it". That may make a settlement more palatable to Waymo, or potentially decrease the damages awarded to them by a jury if it goes to trial.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by jonas21 on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @04:12PM (#14448168)
The court can (and did) order Uber to:

> immediately and in writing exercise the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to (a) prevent Anthony Levandowski and all other officers, directors, employees, and agents of defendants from consulting, copying, or otherwise using the downloaded materials; and (b) cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo (or the Court) by MAY 31 AT NOON [1]

---

I believe that authority includes firing him if he did not comply.

[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3722249/Uber-Inju...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by tomjen3 on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @04:42PM (#14448378)
How do you return a downloaded file without copying it?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by CobrastanJorji on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @04:54PM (#14448451)
You're thinking like an engineer. You probably also think that playing a video creates a copy just because it does. You probably also think Aereo's business model was legal just because it technically obeyed all of the laws.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by thesimon on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @04:52PM (#14448435)
By returning the storage medium it is on?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by radicaldreamer on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @07:37PM (#14449446)
Pretty simple: turn over the computer and/or devices it is on.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by John23832 on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @03:46PM (#14447965)
Don't all corporate punishments include the clause "up to and including termination"?

If the court is compelling Uber to produce documents and/or information, and if those documents/information are in the hands on one employee, then the courts are compelling Uber to compel employee. That's Uber's card to play, "punishment, up to and including termination".

The court didn't order Uber to fire Levandowski, it ask Uber to do everything within its power to produce documents/information.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by otterley on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @04:17PM (#14448197)
Actually, they did it because the judge suggested it. There was no other practical way for Uber to comply with the court's orders in light of Levandowski's pleading the Fifth.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Uber.Waym... (page 23, footnote 9).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski by tmh79 on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @04:24PM (#14448250)
They didn't do this "because they are probably going to lose the case" they did this because the judge instructed them to.

Its also entirely unclear if they will actually lose the case or not. Comments made in the PI ruling make it seem very ambiguous, and it will hinge on the results of further discovery. If no new relevant evidence is found in discover, uber will be found innocent.

[ Parent | on HN ]