life_on_mars

Has this other evidence even been presented yet?

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.

It's reasonable for it to be used against Mr Lewandowsky, but is it reasonable to use it against his employer?

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.

They claim that they knew this happened more than a year ago. The veracity of their logs, or at the very least the chain of custody of those logs, should seriously be called into question at this point.

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

So from what I understand, Google is litigating this in public, but their lawyers, such as Mr. Verhoeven, are redacting everything on their side they don't want public. This makes it sound like Google is doing this in public mainly to hurt Uber as much as possible in the court of public opinion. Am I wrong in interpreting Google's actions this way?

Sounds like this and many other conflicts Google had with Mr. Lewandowsky over the years should have been dealt with in arbitration. This just looks like Google acting out a vendetta against Mr. Lewandowsky. They tolerated his actions when he worked for them and even after he left to work for himself, but turned against him once he joined a competitor.

While on paper, it doesn't appear that Mr. Lewandowsky is a saint, Google doesn't look good here either. Google's behavior here should give any engineer pause about considering Google as a place to work. California doesn't allow non-compete agreements, and this looks like Google attempting to achieve the effects of a non-compete through litigation. "If we can't hire and keep Mr. Lewandowsky, then we'll make sure our competitors can't either."

It's an absurd position to take. Maybe he picked his lawyers based on quality of the lawyers he'd be facing. I've met some of Google's lawyers, and if I were being sued by them, I'd get the best damn lawyers my money could buy.