The most notable part to me is that Uber stopped using the app. What would change in the privacy world to make them not need that app if they had a use for it before?

Add that to all the other context of the case, and malicious use is a lot more likely to me.

> Paying off someone is far more directly relevant but again there is a presumption of innocence for very good reasons.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a civil suit and subject to "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I find a hard time making an argument that it's more likely Uber didn't use Levandowski to steal trade secrets from Google.