Such an interesting case to watch from the outside.
Clearly the guy did not realize that Google spends inordinate amount of resources watching their own employees. When I was there, a couple of laptops were stolen from HQ and the amount, and detail, of the laptops they had (location beacons, video footage from dozens of cameras, and RAT like tools on the laptops themselves) let them capture the crooks, recover the laptops, and identify the contractor who had assisted in access to the building in something like a few hours after they were reported stolen. I was really impressed by that, it certainly let anyone who was thinking about it know just how silly it would be to try to do something counter to the company's interests.
But this comment, "At Google, Levandowski said, he was always chafing at the slow pace of progress. He finally left the company in January 2016, a month after Waymo alleges he had downloaded the technical files, and within days had formed a new company, 280 Systems, which Waymo claims became Otto." I find perhaps the most interesting. I can say a lot of things about Google but 'slow' is not something that generally came to mind. So that is surprising.
And then there is what this guy put at risk, there is this comment: "After covering his tracks, the lawsuit alleges, Levandowski pocketed a multimillion-dollar payout from Google and, using the secrets he had just stolen, promptly set up a new company, Otto, which was acquired shortly after by Uber for around $680m."
Presumably, as part of the acquisition he was signing that he wasn't infringing on any previous agreements by joining and that he had rights to the material in question. And so if this goes against him, it seems Google will have cause to get back their payouts, and Uber will have cause to get back the $680M they paid too. And perhaps a huge chunk of that will come out of his own net worth. Maybe he squirreled away a bunch of cash that he thinks is out of reach of the IRS/Courts but really?
What will be fascinating to watch is how justice is served here.
Regardless of the wrong Levandowski may have committed, he is still an extremely talented engineer in a field where a 'space race' of sorts is going on between a handful of heavily monied-up players.
On one hand, I think Waymo has ability to financial ruin Levandowski. On the other hand, no matter how tainted he is by this scandal, there are still 10 other players in this field who would be willing to pay him a huge salary. So he could easily get a multi-million dollar salary from someone else.
I suppose what could happen is that other companies would be unwilling to work with Levandowski because if a new employer of Levandowski's happens to develop technology similar to Waymo's, Waymo could sue the new company and say the new company received Waymo's proprietary information from Levandowski. Even if that didn't happened, Levandowskis presence is enough to prove otherwise. In other words, just the presence of Levandowski in another self-driving car project is huge legal liability. And that may be his downfall.
It is, however, sad to think that this technology could be set back a few years because of Levandowski's actions.
Yes, and the question 'what is justice' is going to get a workout I suspect.
If he loses, I don't think he will be as easily re-employable as you do. Sure he is clearly a talented engineer but he will be on the record as having cost two companies in this space millions of dollars, primarily due to his own actions. I don't know of any hiring manager who will sign off on that level of risk to the company.
Oddly, if he wins, I think it will result in still greater restrictions, surveillance, and lock downs on employees at Google so in some way it may effect way more people than just the self driving car crowd.
That said, I think the risk of setting the technology back will be Google aggressively pursuing infringement claims against anyone trying to develop self driving cars in an effort to 'not lose' the investment they made. Worst case scenario is a 'digital cash' type disaster[1] but even just suppressing a lot of research will be an impact. Again, if Google wins there will be a lot concern about hiring ex-Google engineers fearing taint.
[1] David Chaum developed some early digital cash patents and aggressively sued anyone trying to develop micropayments or e-cash in the late '90s while simultaneous producing no useful technology of his own, pushing out the possibility of useful e-cash until as least 2018.
"It is, however, sad to think that this technology could be set back a few years because of Levandowski's actions."
I am less concerned about one piece of technology and more concerned about the future of employer relations in general. Employers will become increasingly suspicious of employees leaving and will take actions to either prevent this or to stifle the actual knowledge gained to be used elsewhere.
Just from the filing of this lawsuit, he's probably already damaged goods to anyone who might be looking to hire him... not that he needs money though.
Firstly there appears to be public evidence of stealing from the employer and any hiring company would wonder if it would be the next target. Secondly, just by having him work on your tech, you might get exposed to lawsuits from Google.
No HR and Legal department would sign off on a such a hiring decision.
1) Google has Android because they did something very similar to Apple: Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board and used his inside info to drive smartphone development at Google. A massive lawsuit then transpired, but for Google on balance it was worth it to steal the Android IP from Apple.
2) For that matter, David Drummond was on the board of Uber and arguably took info from there to Google as well, using it to start their ride hailing project. Uber did not sue at that time.
3) Google was very slow on self-driving. Levandowski and others tried to get Google to ship a real self-driving car product for years, but only Uber actually had the cojones to do it in Pittsburgh and Arizona. That is what finally lit a fire under Google to spin out Waymo.
> 1) Google has Android because they did something very similar to Apple: Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board and used his inside info to drive smartphone development at Google. A massive lawsuit then transpired, but for Google on balance it was worth it to steal the Android IP from Apple.
I don't disagree but I also don't see your point. Android licensees have paid more to Microsoft than Google[1], Drummond was on the board but was never an engineer[2], and Google's inability to execute on its Driverless car vision is eerily reminiscent of Google attacking Microsoft Office [3] or stealing key employees [4].
My point is that I understand it is a very competitive and "when they do it, it's bad, when I do it, it's strategy" kind of world. And I completely understand why Levandowski might just say (note he didn't, I just can imagine that he might) "Screw them I'm the one making this happen, I deserve all this money and it is my data, I created it or caused it to be created."[5]
Google already paid huuge sums of money to these engineers[6]. And they have been unable to make any money here or nearly as much progress as others. So one wonders if this is actually an 'Overture' maneuver[7]. Where they agree to settle for 10% of Uber's stock which they will sell all of at the IPO. Netting back their investment in self driving, and a nice bonus. Then they dump the whole thing on Fiat Chrysler and move along.
These things are fun to watch, they don't often happen quite so visibly.
their sec teams have some solidly season former intel/agency folks. They aren't naive when it comes to IP Security; it's kinda their golden goose (ofc outside of ad revenue)
> He also found a lobbyist and got involved in getting laws passed in Nevada and California to allow the testing of autonomous vehicles. His backroom lobbying did not endear him to some executives at Google.
> “I thought you could just do it yourself,” he said. “Then I found out that there is a team dedicated to that, a process. Got a little bit in trouble for doing it.”
Wow. What world is this guy living in, where he thought he should personally hire a lobbyist to change some laws to make his job easier? Maybe it's the difference between me and a 10x-er, but I just don't understand this.
> Q: How are ultra-high-net-worth individuals different from run-of-the-mill affluent individuals?
> A: They have this feeling that rules don’t apply to them, although that mind-set is often the key to much of their success. If they’re told something can’t be done a certain way, they think that doesn’t apply to them and find a way around it.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
I think this George Bernard Shaw quote pretty much explains the guy.
Is he naive or is Google overreaching? Going to be interesting watching this one play out.
"Going to be interesting watching this one play out."
I suspect, access of "14,000 highly confidential and proprietary files shortly before his resignation" will play a major role in swaying the deciders. Experience tells us that not all of those 14k were critical, what if it had be 1 or 2 critical design docs? In a different or future case, we may see that happen. Corps have incentive to reduce competitors, but now may start recognizing the potential leverage they have - "Our network logs show Joe accessed our main design doc 1 week before he left for company doing similar work!".
Would you prefer that he check the regulations, find out that self-driving cars are illegal, and therefore just never develop one?
I don't understand that.
Laws change to accomodate the facts on the ground, as they should. People leading the changes of facts on the ground are in a natural position to push for corresponding changes in law.
How do you think the first human-driven car was permitted to drive on a street?
There was probably no law requiring a license/permit or otherwise to have a motor vehicle, or horse, or age restriction... and likely no sobriety restrictions, depending on location, either.
> Would you prefer that he check the regulations, find out that self-driving cars are illegal, and therefore just never develop one?
Of course not. I'd prefer that he check the regulations, find out that self-driving cars are illegal, and therefore publicly and honestly try to make them legal, in concert with the people who pay him.
>“Google was very supportive, but they absolutely did not want their name associated with a vehicle driving in San Francisco,” he said. “They were worried about an engineer building a self-driving car that kills someone and it gets back to Google.”
In what possible world is that a bad thing to worry about?!
What concerns me is that we are going to see more and more of this in the coming years - corporations concerned over ex-employees taking their knowledge with them and taking legal recourse. In this case, they complain about access of 14k proprietary files - which is pretty damning, but I could see similar damning evidence over accessing a couple of critically important design docs relatively near the end of employment. How do you distinguish between files being accessed merely for the purpose out your work vs theft? How can you ascertain what was in their minds and hearts for accessing for those files - and worse, how little would it take to sway a judge or jury that accessing of such files were deliberate (ie part of the bigger picture)? Courts have been wrong before. Previous generations this didn't come up because they stayed in 1 or 2 jobs their entire lives, at least in this aspect, today's environment is completely different.
Move fast and break things has interesting side effects. If in fact you can prove he took documents, not just what was in his brain, then likely Google will win as that law is fairly obvious. If you can't, what knowledge he knows that he took with him is much more difficult to prove as "stolen".
> Recently, we received an unexpected email. One of our suppliers specializing in LiDAR components sent us an attachment (apparently inadvertently) of machine drawings of what was purported to be Uber’s LiDAR circuit board — except its design bore a striking resemblance to Waymo’s unique LiDAR design.
> We found that six weeks before his resignation this former employee, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems, including designs of Waymo’s LiDAR and circuit board. To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints.
The full legal complaint is at the bottom of that post. It doesn't say how Waymo detected it, but presumably they have internal IT logs.
Humorously, when we were going over the scenario, I told them the case would have been miserably lost by Richard, but since Richard had to win, I had to help them come up with a way that was at least not-truly-terrible (and fix the dialogue :P)
But they actually had a completely written legal complaint and everything.
Your work is appreciated. Watching that episode originally my thinking was "surely nobody experienced in the business would be unaware of how to behave and act to avoid future IP lawsuits", but I guess this real-life case proves otherwise..
Sadly, that case went to arbitration, so they cannot. But I definitely think this article is giving me a better understanding of Google's D2F ratio... ;)
I am actually sincerely curious - is this considered a felony if proven? Seems like a major offense to steal such a massive amount of information blatantly for self enrichment, even if done under the missive of "changing the world"
The suit is a civil tort, seeking damages. A felony is a criminal charge, usually against a person. I'm sure Google can call the CA District attorney and/or the western US district attorney to make a criminal complaint, State and Federal, respectively. I'm not an expert on the actual criminal charges available on each level but probably something about trade secrets if we're talking federal charges.
It really depends on the specifics of the case... the above could easily download 14K documents (necessary for doing work by said employee) a full 6 weeks before leaving the company.
Readit News
Clearly the guy did not realize that Google spends inordinate amount of resources watching their own employees. When I was there, a couple of laptops were stolen from HQ and the amount, and detail, of the laptops they had (location beacons, video footage from dozens of cameras, and RAT like tools on the laptops themselves) let them capture the crooks, recover the laptops, and identify the contractor who had assisted in access to the building in something like a few hours after they were reported stolen. I was really impressed by that, it certainly let anyone who was thinking about it know just how silly it would be to try to do something counter to the company's interests.
But this comment, "At Google, Levandowski said, he was always chafing at the slow pace of progress. He finally left the company in January 2016, a month after Waymo alleges he had downloaded the technical files, and within days had formed a new company, 280 Systems, which Waymo claims became Otto." I find perhaps the most interesting. I can say a lot of things about Google but 'slow' is not something that generally came to mind. So that is surprising.
And then there is what this guy put at risk, there is this comment: "After covering his tracks, the lawsuit alleges, Levandowski pocketed a multimillion-dollar payout from Google and, using the secrets he had just stolen, promptly set up a new company, Otto, which was acquired shortly after by Uber for around $680m."
Presumably, as part of the acquisition he was signing that he wasn't infringing on any previous agreements by joining and that he had rights to the material in question. And so if this goes against him, it seems Google will have cause to get back their payouts, and Uber will have cause to get back the $680M they paid too. And perhaps a huge chunk of that will come out of his own net worth. Maybe he squirreled away a bunch of cash that he thinks is out of reach of the IRS/Courts but really?
Going to be interesting indeed.
Regardless of the wrong Levandowski may have committed, he is still an extremely talented engineer in a field where a 'space race' of sorts is going on between a handful of heavily monied-up players.
On one hand, I think Waymo has ability to financial ruin Levandowski. On the other hand, no matter how tainted he is by this scandal, there are still 10 other players in this field who would be willing to pay him a huge salary. So he could easily get a multi-million dollar salary from someone else.
I suppose what could happen is that other companies would be unwilling to work with Levandowski because if a new employer of Levandowski's happens to develop technology similar to Waymo's, Waymo could sue the new company and say the new company received Waymo's proprietary information from Levandowski. Even if that didn't happened, Levandowskis presence is enough to prove otherwise. In other words, just the presence of Levandowski in another self-driving car project is huge legal liability. And that may be his downfall.
It is, however, sad to think that this technology could be set back a few years because of Levandowski's actions.
If he loses, I don't think he will be as easily re-employable as you do. Sure he is clearly a talented engineer but he will be on the record as having cost two companies in this space millions of dollars, primarily due to his own actions. I don't know of any hiring manager who will sign off on that level of risk to the company.
Oddly, if he wins, I think it will result in still greater restrictions, surveillance, and lock downs on employees at Google so in some way it may effect way more people than just the self driving car crowd.
That said, I think the risk of setting the technology back will be Google aggressively pursuing infringement claims against anyone trying to develop self driving cars in an effort to 'not lose' the investment they made. Worst case scenario is a 'digital cash' type disaster[1] but even just suppressing a lot of research will be an impact. Again, if Google wins there will be a lot concern about hiring ex-Google engineers fearing taint.
[1] David Chaum developed some early digital cash patents and aggressively sued anyone trying to develop micropayments or e-cash in the late '90s while simultaneous producing no useful technology of his own, pushing out the possibility of useful e-cash until as least 2018.
I am less concerned about one piece of technology and more concerned about the future of employer relations in general. Employers will become increasingly suspicious of employees leaving and will take actions to either prevent this or to stifle the actual knowledge gained to be used elsewhere.
Firstly there appears to be public evidence of stealing from the employer and any hiring company would wonder if it would be the next target. Secondly, just by having him work on your tech, you might get exposed to lawsuits from Google.
No HR and Legal department would sign off on a such a hiring decision.
Seems unlikely if his work is the poisoned fruit of IP theft as Google claims
1) Google has Android because they did something very similar to Apple: Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board and used his inside info to drive smartphone development at Google. A massive lawsuit then transpired, but for Google on balance it was worth it to steal the Android IP from Apple.
http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/20/steve-jobs-im-going-to-destroy...
2) For that matter, David Drummond was on the board of Uber and arguably took info from there to Google as well, using it to start their ride hailing project. Uber did not sue at that time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-02/exclusive...
3) Google was very slow on self-driving. Levandowski and others tried to get Google to ship a real self-driving car product for years, but only Uber actually had the cojones to do it in Pittsburgh and Arizona. That is what finally lit a fire under Google to spin out Waymo.
This is totally false
My point is that I understand it is a very competitive and "when they do it, it's bad, when I do it, it's strategy" kind of world. And I completely understand why Levandowski might just say (note he didn't, I just can imagine that he might) "Screw them I'm the one making this happen, I deserve all this money and it is my data, I created it or caused it to be created."[5]
Google already paid huuge sums of money to these engineers[6]. And they have been unable to make any money here or nearly as much progress as others. So one wonders if this is actually an 'Overture' maneuver[7]. Where they agree to settle for 10% of Uber's stock which they will sell all of at the IPO. Netting back their investment in self driving, and a nice bonus. Then they dump the whole thing on Fiat Chrysler and move along.
These things are fun to watch, they don't often happen quite so visibly.
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-is-making-2bn-a-year-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Drummond_(Google)
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/google-plan-to-beat-microsoft...
[4] WARNING - autoplaying video https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-sues-over-google-hire/
[5] The three conditions of the fraud triangle, opportunity, pressure, and rationalization -- http://www.hrzone.com/hr-glossary/what-is-the-fraud-triangle
[6] http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/13/14599186/google-waymo-self...
[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/business/technology-google...
Perhaps Google's preference for not having their autonomous vehicles driving under trucks or running around San Francisco recklessly chafed at him.
> “I thought you could just do it yourself,” he said. “Then I found out that there is a team dedicated to that, a process. Got a little bit in trouble for doing it.”
Wow. What world is this guy living in, where he thought he should personally hire a lobbyist to change some laws to make his job easier? Maybe it's the difference between me and a 10x-er, but I just don't understand this.
> A: They have this feeling that rules don’t apply to them, although that mind-set is often the key to much of their success. If they’re told something can’t be done a certain way, they think that doesn’t apply to them and find a way around it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/your-money/inside-the-min...
I think this George Bernard Shaw quote pretty much explains the guy.
Is he naive or is Google overreaching? Going to be interesting watching this one play out.
I suspect, access of "14,000 highly confidential and proprietary files shortly before his resignation" will play a major role in swaying the deciders. Experience tells us that not all of those 14k were critical, what if it had be 1 or 2 critical design docs? In a different or future case, we may see that happen. Corps have incentive to reduce competitors, but now may start recognizing the potential leverage they have - "Our network logs show Joe accessed our main design doc 1 week before he left for company doing similar work!".
I don't understand that.
Laws change to accomodate the facts on the ground, as they should. People leading the changes of facts on the ground are in a natural position to push for corresponding changes in law.
How do you think the first human-driven car was permitted to drive on a street?
Of course not. I'd prefer that he check the regulations, find out that self-driving cars are illegal, and therefore publicly and honestly try to make them legal, in concert with the people who pay him.
In what possible world is that a bad thing to worry about?!
[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7dzPLynxaXuQjY3dkllZ2ZKb0k...
> Recently, we received an unexpected email. One of our suppliers specializing in LiDAR components sent us an attachment (apparently inadvertently) of machine drawings of what was purported to be Uber’s LiDAR circuit board — except its design bore a striking resemblance to Waymo’s unique LiDAR design.
> We found that six weeks before his resignation this former employee, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo’s various hardware systems, including designs of Waymo’s LiDAR and circuit board. To gain access to Waymo’s design server, Mr. Levandowski searched for and installed specialized software onto his company-issued laptop. Once inside, he downloaded 9.7 GB of Waymo’s highly confidential files and trade secrets, including blueprints, design files and testing documentation. Then he connected an external drive to the laptop. Mr. Levandowski then wiped and reformatted the laptop in an attempt to erase forensic fingerprints.
The full legal complaint is at the bottom of that post. It doesn't say how Waymo detected it, but presumably they have internal IT logs.
The claim is not about anything in his brain.
But they actually had a completely written legal complaint and everything.
This cannot end well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret#United_States
I think that DTSA may not hold here because it wasn't signed until the events occurred.
I went looking into this after a comment from Animats in yesterday's thread struck me as odd
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13719070