Uber’s Levandowski gets fired

Engineer is accused of grabbing 14,000 files before founding his own startup.

Read the whole story

 

[scooternva]

The company says Google's files didn't make their way to Uber.

Show of votes:

Upvote if you think this is just a corporate lie, because Uber does that a lot.

Downvote if you think it's the truth, because Uber... Um... Well, maybe they've decided to turn over a new leaf?

I salute you for devising this foolproof strategy to garner reputation points!

 

[THavoc]

Now the big question: what provisions did Uber include in the acquisition agreement to claw back stock options in this sort of situation?

I'd certainly hope that they had something in there to ensure that the options didn't vest if Levandowski was fired with cause during the first few years of employment.

If not, then Uber's CEO deserves to be fired too.

Yeah, one would think that both his employment contract, and the buyout of his company included language about their payment on both being contingent on them being able to actually use both his experience and IP.

Of course, that's currently a double-edged sword for them. Sue Levandowski now and they basically admit that the stuff they purchased from him is Waymo property. So they'll most likely need to wait until the end of this litigation before they can possibly try to go after those hundreds of millions they paid for his company.

Normally I would agree with you but this is Uber we are talking about; a nearly perfect distillation of modern day serfdom, dudebro culture, and a passionate belief that laws are for suckers. Still one can certainly hope there is some clawback provision.

I would think they could claim fraud on his part to nullify the purchase agreement.

But I'm not a lawyer.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Sometimes i wonder how Uber, as a company, let these kinds of affair linger for so long. Any company that works with R&D has no business allowing an employee involved in a data theft scandal linger in their workforce, especially in a management position. Uber should have suspended Lewandowsky from his position the very day the scandal broke out, and terminated him on the first hint that he refused to cooperate.

At this point it's obvious Uber was at the very least sloppy for not performing due diligence on his acquisition of Otto, and most likely someone at Uber enabled Lewandowsky. This wouldn't be as bad if Uber had the attitude to swiftly fire all employees involved in these shady deals, but instead they take a reticent position to delay the resolution of this issue.

It's almost like Uber WANTS to look like Evil Inc., which is funny since their long history of crookedness suggest that's exactly what they are. But they certainly could use a little less bad press.

Aside from the "Travis doesn't feel alive if he isn't flouting a few laws" issue; I imagine it's financial: Uber has said(and 3rd party analysis is even less optimistic) that automation is a matter of survival. Even with the 'lol,not employees​' labor arrangement, they are burning money. Should a given jurisdiction crack down on that, they'll burn even more. If somebody beats them to automated vehicles and either offers their own service or sells to everyone at the same rates, Uber will have burned a ton of money and have nothing to show for it.

When the alternative is failure, risky cheating is an easier sell; and it's not as though Uber's scruples put up much of a fight.

 

[Man o' War]

Will Google add Levandowski as a defendant now? Now that he and Uber are separated, it might be a good tactic to bring him in and try to turn him against Uber.

If Google can get Levandowski to start talking about his deal with Uber, that might be better from Google's perspective than nailing Levandowski to the cross.

 

[shelbystripes]

Also, if I recall Uber's letter in the last Ars article, it said that he would likely be fired for cause. That means his stock options have gone up in smoke, and it's Levandowski that will have to wait until the legal smoke clears to claw back what he lost, *if* he is somehow able to manage some favorable outcome, which seems very unlikely.

I mentioned this in another comment already, but it's important to note Levandowski gets two different kinds of compensation from this deal. He got compensated as a seller of Otto, and he was paid in Uber stock (not stock options, actual stock). That stock is his, it was given to him in exchange for Otto stock. He gets to keep it, unless Uber can (and does) go to court to unwind the Otto purchase.

He also became an Uber employee, which included standard employee compensation like salary and stock options. The employee stock options would be cancelled if he was fired for cause... but it wouldn't make him give back what he got as a seller, it only terminates what he could get as an employee.

 

[gmerrick]

I wonder if Alsup can get Levandowski's passport pulled. He seems to be a flight risk.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

Now the big question: what provisions did Uber include in the acquisition agreement to claw back stock options in this sort of situation?

I'd certainly hope that they had something in there to ensure that the options didn't vest if Levandowski was fired with cause during the first few years of employment.

If not, then Uber's CEO deserves to be fired too.

CEO?

You mean the VP of HR, and/or legal counsel.

 

[Brendan McKinley]

I bet Uber is still counting on using the tech that they got from this guy. Because paying for something another guy stole somehow makes everything legit ...

Worked for Microsoft with DOS.

 

[THavoc]

Seriously, why is there no jail time?

Wouldn't there have to be a court case for that first?

 

[ckm8kng2]

Gee, guilty much? When the company you're trying to sell allegedly (and yes, it's not been proven yet) stolen IP, fires you, after backing you in a major litigation for the alleged crimes, wow... Me thinks you're in trouble.

Also doesn't help you tried, again allegedly, to funnel it through an incredibly transparent intermediary company that is going to get scrutinized heavily.. Really, I'm amazed you're not on the next plane to China begging for asylum.

I honestly think you'll need it but you certainly deserve jail time.

*sorry to be so spitefull on here, but myself and good friends off mine have had their lives ruined because of ip thieves (allegedly) like him. This is real, straight up damaging theft... If that is what it turns out to be*

I guess Im not that familiar with the case but, didnt he create the tech at Google??? I "thought" he created the tech at Google, left Google, allegedly stole a bunch of the tech on his way out, then used that tech at Uber???
Or........did he just work for Google in that division and stole the tech when he left. I mean, I know that even if its tech HE CREATED, it belongs to Google as he worked for them......I get that. I just dont think he is a major stealing low life thief, if its stuff he created while there. Unless he had a no compete in his Google contract, what are you supposed to do? Can you turn off your brain and just "forget" the knowledge you had when you created the tech? None of it matters if it wasnt tech he created, I was just not sure which it was.

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

Uber is an evil company. Levandowski was a scoundrel.

How does this play into Google's case? Seems to me Waymo is in control here.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

Seriously, why is there no jail time?

You'd see him jailed before there's a conviction?

 

[Gern Blaanston]

Uber is in such a no-win position here. Even if they have honestly done all the due diligence that they should, and even if they don't have any of Waymo's data, it strains credulity/belief that they don't actually have some of Waymo's stolen data.

Then again, it's at least partially Uber's own fault for bringing on Levandowski under somewhat sketchy business circumstances.

Uber claims that its self-driving car technology was built "independently from the ground up and Google's files didn't make their way to Uber."

But the amount of time from Levandowski leaving Google, starting Otto and then selling Otto to Uber was 6 months - hardly enough time to build a company of any substance. So what exactly did Uber pay $680 Million for?

It seems pretty obvious that Uber was in on the scam from the very beginning, and if you look at this timeline of events:

https://www.axios.com/the-tortured-hist ... 66425.html

The whole thing becomes clear.

 

[THavoc]

Uber is in such a no-win position here. Even if they have honestly done all the due diligence that they should, and even if they don't have any of Waymo's data, it strains credulity/belief that they don't actually have some of Waymo's stolen data.

Then again, it's at least partially Uber's own fault for bringing on Levandowski under somewhat sketchy business circumstances.

Uber claims that its self-driving car technology was built "independently from the ground up and Google's files didn't make their way to Uber."

But the amount of time from Levandowski leaving Google, starting Otto and then selling Otto to Uber was 6 months - hardly enough time to build a company of any substance. So what exactly did Uber pay $680 Million for?

It seems pretty obvious that Uber was in on the scam from the very beginning, and if you look at this timeline of events:

https://www.axios.com/the-tortured-hist ... 66425.html

The whole thing becomes clear.

Obvious? Yes. I really doubt that they didn't know it was stolen tech.

Provable? I'm not so sure about that.

I guess it'll all come down to how well Uber covered their tracks but I don't think a tight timeline is enough proof.

 

[Statistical]

Now the big question: what provisions did Uber include in the acquisition agreement to claw back stock options in this sort of situation?

I'd certainly hope that they had something in there to ensure that the options didn't vest if Levandowski was fired with cause during the first few years of employment.

If not, then Uber's CEO deserves to be fired too.

Yeah, one would think that both his employment contract, and the buyout of his company included language about their payment on both being contingent on them being able to actually use both his experience and IP.

Of course, that's currently a double-edged sword for them. Sue Levandowski now and they basically admit that the stuff they purchased from him is Waymo property. So they'll most likely need to wait until the end of this litigation before they can possibly try to go after those hundreds of millions they paid for his company.

Normally I would agree with you but this is Uber we are talking about; a nearly perfect distillation of modern day serfdom, dudebro culture, and a passionate belief that laws are for suckers. Still one can certainly hope there is some clawback provision.

I would think they could claim fraud on his part to nullify the purchase agreement.

But I'm not a lawyer.

I am fairly certain Uber was aware they were buying a shell company around stolen Google IP. You can't claim fraud when you are part of the conspiracy. Of course all that is going to come out in discovery if Uber tries to unwind the sale.

I mean either Uber was in on the fraud or they are beyond stupid. Otto only existed for six months and they bought it for $680M after initially having talks with Lewandowski while he was still working at Google. In six months Otto builds $680M of autonomous tech out of thin air? Come on. Uber is evil not stupid.

 

[THavoc]

Now the big question: what provisions did Uber include in the acquisition agreement to claw back stock options in this sort of situation?

I'd certainly hope that they had something in there to ensure that the options didn't vest if Levandowski was fired with cause during the first few years of employment.

If not, then Uber's CEO deserves to be fired too.

Yeah, one would think that both his employment contract, and the buyout of his company included language about their payment on both being contingent on them being able to actually use both his experience and IP.

Of course, that's currently a double-edged sword for them. Sue Levandowski now and they basically admit that the stuff they purchased from him is Waymo property. So they'll most likely need to wait until the end of this litigation before they can possibly try to go after those hundreds of millions they paid for his company.

Normally I would agree with you but this is Uber we are talking about; a nearly perfect distillation of modern day serfdom, dudebro culture, and a passionate belief that laws are for suckers. Still one can certainly hope there is some clawback provision.

I would think they could claim fraud on his part to nullify the purchase agreement.

But I'm not a lawyer.

I am fairly certain Uber was aware they were buying a shell company around stolen Google IP. You can't claim fraud when you are part of the conspiracy. Of course all that is going to come out in discovery if Uber tries to unwind the sale.

I mean either Uber was in on the fraud or they are beyond stupid. Otto only existed for six months and they bought it for $680M after initially having talks with Lewandowski while he was still working at Google. In six months Otto builds $680M of autonomous tech out of thin air? Come on. Uber is evil not stupid.

Oh, I agree. However, it'll have to be proven that they knew about it.

Hopefully, someone that IS a lawyer can chime on the specifics.

 

[Statistical]

Now the big question: what provisions did Uber include in the acquisition agreement to claw back stock options in this sort of situation?

I'd certainly hope that they had something in there to ensure that the options didn't vest if Levandowski was fired with cause during the first few years of employment.

If not, then Uber's CEO deserves to be fired too.

Yeah, one would think that both his employment contract, and the buyout of his company included language about their payment on both being contingent on them being able to actually use both his experience and IP.

Of course, that's currently a double-edged sword for them. Sue Levandowski now and they basically admit that the stuff they purchased from him is Waymo property. So they'll most likely need to wait until the end of this litigation before they can possibly try to go after those hundreds of millions they paid for his company.

Normally I would agree with you but this is Uber we are talking about; a nearly perfect distillation of modern day serfdom, dudebro culture, and a passionate belief that laws are for suckers. Still one can certainly hope there is some clawback provision.

I would think they could claim fraud on his part to nullify the purchase agreement.

But I'm not a lawyer.

I am fairly certain Uber was aware they were buying a shell company around stolen Google IP. You can't claim fraud when you are part of the conspiracy. Of course all that is going to come out in discovery if Uber tries to unwind the sale.

I mean either Uber was in on the fraud or they are beyond stupid. Otto only existed for six months and they bought it for $680M after initially having talks with Lewandowski while he was still working at Google. In six months Otto builds $680M of autonomous tech out of thin air? Come on. Uber is evil not stupid.

Oh, I agree. However, it'll have to be proven that they knew about it.

Hopefully, someone that IS a lawyer can chime on the specifics.

Well your right if Uber completely covered their tracks they could claim being the victim and leave Lewandoski high and dry. However what if Lewandoski recorded meetings or phone calls. Also what if a single Uber executive was a little to direct in an email. All that is going to come out in discovery. When that becomes public record as part of the court case to unwind the Otto deal, they will have handed Google a billion dollar legal hammer.

So if Uber sues to unwind their purchase of Otto then either they are innocent (lolz) or they covered their tracks very well. If the months turn into years and Uber never moves to unwind their purchase of Otto you know why.

 

[siliconaddict]

Uber: Levandowski, you are fired.
Tony: But I thought you said we were covered with the fake company?
Uber: uietQay onyay ethay ompanycay alktay! *making the STFU motions*
Tony: Fine well I'm going to take you down with me!
Uber: *slides a bag of money under the table*
Tony: I still need better lawyers.
Uber: *slides another bag of money under the table*

 

[truthyboy15]

I am fairly certain Uber was aware they were buying a shell company around stolen Google IP. You can't claim fraud when you are part of the conspiracy. Of course all that is going to come out in discovery if Uber tries to unwind the sale.

I mean either Uber was in on the fraud or they are beyond stupid. Otto only existed for six months and they bought it for $680M after initially having talks with Lewandowski while he was still working at Google. In six months Otto builds $680M of autonomous tech out of thin air? Come on. Uber is evil not stupid.

that my friend is easy to solve. have uber produce what they were spending $680 million for. however, i'll bet you it was waymo ip like we all think it was.

 

[shelbystripes]

I am fairly certain Uber was aware they were buying a shell company around stolen Google IP. You can't claim fraud when you are part of the conspiracy. Of course all that is going to come out in discovery if Uber tries to unwind the sale.

I mean either Uber was in on the fraud or they are beyond stupid. Otto only existed for six months and they bought it for $680M after initially having talks with Lewandowski while he was still working at Google. In six months Otto builds $680M of autonomous tech out of thin air? Come on. Uber is evil not stupid.

Oh, I agree. However, it'll have to be proven that they knew about it.

Hopefully, someone that IS a lawyer can chime on the specifics.

The legal standard under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act defines "misappropriation" as "acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means." Waymo is accusing Uber of misappropriation under the DTSA, which means Waymo doesn't have to prove Uber knew the trade secrets they obtained were improperly acquired, they only have to prove Uber should have known.

The fun thing here is, since due diligence on IP ownership is standard practice in tech M&A transactions, there's a very easy argument why Uber "should have known" if it didn't know. Uber should have records indicating that it did diligence and had reason to believe the IP wasn't stolen. If they didn't do that diligence, and they should have as standard industry practice and to protect their investors... that's pretty much the ballgame.

On the question of whether or not I'm a lawyer, I plead the Fifth.

 

[Vidi Vici Veni]

Yeah that will teach him not to steal. I feel bad for the guys having to live off the 680 million dollars he made from the theft without a day job for financial security.

Now if there was jail time and restitution on the horizon maybe he would be a little worried.

I read this as "680 million he made from theft without a day job in financial ..."

 

[siliconaddict]

Yeah know. I just realized. If Google wanted to be a real dick they could start to go after Levandowski. Then offer to drop everything if he provides proof that Uber knew full well that they were getting into bed with misappropriated trade secrets, throwing another log on Uber's funeral pyre. Levandowski may be worth going after, but Uber as a company, if they knowingly did what we all THINK they did, well it's possible Google might be more pissed about that.

 

[Marlor_AU]

Unless Uber is totally incompetent, the $680M is mostly options on Uber shares dependent on future performance, which has been underwhelming so far. It would be REALLY interesting to know the details.

Why do people keep saying stock options? It would be highly unusual for a company to acquire another company by paying the acquiring company with stock options. Deals are usually cash and equity or possibly equity alone.

The deal was stock-only (with a bonus related to future trucking profits) according to reports in the financial papers.

Founder shares are almost always subject to vesting, and during an acquisition the vesting period is retained. If an employee is fired without cause after an acquisition, the vesting is usually accelerated, so they get their full entitlement. If they are fired with cause, then it comes down to the terms of the acquisition.

 

[Marlor_AU]

Now the big question: what provisions did Uber include in the acquisition agreement to claw back stock options in this sort of situation?

I'd certainly hope that they had something in there to ensure that the options didn't vest if Levandowski was fired with cause during the first few years of employment.

If not, then Uber's CEO deserves to be fired too.

CEO?

You mean the VP of HR, and/or legal counsel.

I'm sure the CEO at least glances over the terms of a $680 million deal.

 

[Hapticz]

a nice follow up with criminal and civil complaints by those were stolen from would almost make this palpable. off with his criminal hands!

 

[Megol]

The company says Google's files didn't make their way to Uber.

Show of votes:

Upvote if you think this is just a corporate lie, because Uber does that a lot.

Downvote if you think it's the truth, because Uber... Um... Well, maybe they've decided to turn over a new leaf?

Yeah, that one hurt my head to even say...

Downvoted due to "begging" for votes.

 

[RainCaster]

There's a job for him in Congress. The GOP has no concerns about stolen information or misaligned priorities.

 

[THavoc]

The company says Google's files didn't make their way to Uber.

Show of votes:

Upvote if you think this is just a corporate lie, because Uber does that a lot.

Downvote if you think it's the truth, because Uber... Um... Well, maybe they've decided to turn over a new leaf?

Yeah, that one hurt my head to even say...

Downvoted due to "begging" for votes.

Eh, I dunno. He could have started off with "I know I'll be downvoted for this but..."

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I wonder if Alsup can get Levandowski's passport pulled. He seems to be a flight risk.

He's a well known LIDAR engineer: that's an enormously strong case for him being a time-of-flight risk.

 

[BlackMan614]

And why isn't he being prosecuted?? I mean... he's not a bankster employed by Goldman Sachs.

 

[THavoc]

And why isn't he being prosecuted?? I mean... he's not a bankster employed by Goldman Sachs.

Too soon perhaps?

Maybe they are still looking over the evidence?

 

[taswyn]

Wait, now Uber fires him?

Because waiting this long doesn't just scream "oops we realized we ARE going to get caught so do everything we can to look less guilty than we already do."

If they had fired him at the outset it would have been believable. At this point it just looks like backstabbing among criminals. And that's assuming there isn't some parachute deal quietly attached for keeping quiet.

When you find out that, unequivocally, your new bestie employee downloaded 14,000 proprietary documents as they left their last job, and now is pleading the fifth instead of being a witness in your favor, you don't set multi-month "compliance deadlines" some number of months into the lawsuit you are now embroiled in with their ex employer. I mean, normal companies don't. I can't think of any situation where that's not immediate grounds for termination with cause. Doing anything else just looks like excuses made up for changing your mind down the road.

 

[SixDegrees]

I'm a little puzzled why Waymo hasn't contacted police about possible grand theft charges.

As things stand now, they still don't have their documents, and it's a near-certain bet that Uber does have them, and is already folding them into their engineering efforts. Given that it's Uber we're talking about, it wouldn't surprise me if they turned around and sued Waymo in a few months for using Waymo's original work that Uber now claims as its own.

 

[Pubert]

I've only paged Uber once. It was for a time critical appointment where I didn't want to have to fool around with parking.
And of course no one showed up.

Never again.

 

[skyywise]

Seriously, why is there no jail time?

I'm a little puzzled why Waymo hasn't contacted police about possible grand theft charges.

As things stand now, they still don't have their documents, and it's a near-certain bet that Uber does have them, and is already folding them into their engineering efforts. Given that it's Uber we're talking about, it wouldn't surprise me if they turned around and sued Waymo in a few months for using Waymo's original work that Uber now claims as its own.

Judge Alsup referred this matter to prosecutors, who will decide if there is a criminal case to be made. Jail time for Uber executives over this, however, is unlikely.

As for any criminal charges or trade secret issues between Waymo and Levandowski, I imagine that their employment-contract-mandated arbitration has to reach it's conclusion, first.

 

[VidasDuday]

When I read about this kind of behavior (and Theranos too) I always wonder if there's anyone on the Ars forums who knows this person personally and could weigh in on them- are they truly a douche canoe? Or was it more a matter of a golden chain of rationalizations?

 

[melgross]

Now the big question: what provisions did Uber include in the acquisition agreement to claw back stock options in this sort of situation?

I'd certainly hope that they had something in there to ensure that the options didn't vest if Levandowski was fired with cause during the first few years of employment.

If not, then Uber's CEO deserves to be fired too.

Well, since Uber is such an outstanding corporate citizen, which has never done anything for us to question, I truly believe everything they've said about this issue.

For example, I would never believe that at least part of the reason they paid him $620 million for his little company that hadn't done anything much, was for those documents he had stolen. Oh no!

Of course, he can't say anything about this or, his 5th amazement rights go out the door.

But if it's a choice of a few years behind bars, and a large fine, or giving it all back, who knows, he might want to say something. And if they did know about those documents, despite their denials, which, of course, I believe totally, then how can they attempt to claw anything back, as it will all come out?

 

[Nilt]

Now the big question: what provisions did Uber include in the acquisition agreement to claw back stock options in this sort of situation?

I'd certainly hope that they had something in there to ensure that the options didn't vest if Levandowski was fired with cause during the first few years of employment.

If not, then Uber's CEO deserves to be fired too.

Of course he deserves to be fired. He's the head of a company that's literally ignored the law, circumvented it at will, and has actively prevented regulators from conducting appropriate oversight. There's no world in which that doesn't deserve a termination, except somehow in the warped worldview of those who think "disruption" is somehow a positive. It isn't. It can be but it is not inherently so.

I bet Uber is still counting on using the tech that they got from this guy. Because paying for something another guy stole somehow makes everything legit ...

Worked for Microsoft with DOS.

There is literally no parallel here. Microsoft PAID the asked-for price for DOS. They didn't steal it or misappropriate it. They paid for it, full stop. The fact that it was worth more in the long run is neither here nor there. It seems unfair, from one perspective, but how many inventors make a couple hundred grand at best from an invention only for the companies who bought it to make millions, if not billions? Yet no one accuses these companies of theft.

Yeah know. I just realized. If Google wanted to be a real dick they could start to go after Levandowski. Then offer to drop everything if he provides proof that Uber knew full well that they were getting into bed with misappropriated trade secrets, throwing another log on Uber's funeral pyre. Levandowski may be worth going after, but Uber as a company, if they knowingly did what we all THINK they did, well it's possible Google might be more pissed about that.

They already are going after him. It's just that they had an agreement with him to use arbitration, which is not only not a public process to begin with, but which also comes with binding gag orders in general on top of that.

Everyone seems to think that the wheels of justice can somehow summon up a conviction overnight. It can't. Due process is a right and it takes time to properly build a criminal case. Look at how long it took for the law to really catch up with the Prenda asshats. Expect at least as long for this one, since there's an order of magnitude more money at play to defend with.

 

[dio82]

So if he didn't steal those documents, what exactly did Uber buy with his company? He didn't have time to do anything new.

Why? Uber of course bought Otto for that 680mil smile of Lewandovsky.

 

[gigaplex]

The company says Google's files didn't make their way to Uber.

Show of votes:

Upvote if you think this is just a corporate lie, because Uber does that a lot.

Downvote if you think it's the truth, because Uber... Um... Well, maybe they've decided to turn over a new leaf?

Yeah, that one hurt my head to even say...

Downvoted for the obviously structured poll designed to get upvotes.