So to take a kind of backwards view here, are there any consequences for Waymo if they are incorrect in this filing? Or is this the part of legal wrangling where you throw mud and see what sticks?
To be sure, there's a great deal of smoke around Levandowski and the Otto acquisition, and probably some fire as well.
There are consequences, but they're more related to the adequacy of Google's basis for making the assertion rather than whether it is ultimately correct or incorrect. Accuracy of representations in filings in federal court is governed by Rule 11: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11. Lawyers and their clients can be (and regularly are) sanctioned for violating the rule. The rule enumerates various requirements, but the gist of it is that you have to have a good faith basis for any legal argument or factual assertion you put in a filing. Viewed retrospectively, if you're wrong and the other side brings a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, you had better be able to explain that you acted in good faith by conducting a reasonable investigation and finding information backing up your assertion.
With regards to allegations like the ones here, the backup might be, e.g. emails that tend to suggest Kalanick knew about the misappropriated IP, or even an interview with a witness who said Kalanick knew. After further discovery that could turn out to be wrong--the emails might not reveal the full context, or the witness misinterpreted the situation, or, more likely, there is simply a greater volume of emails or testimony suggesting that he did not know. That's fine under Rule 11, what matters is that there was some factual basis to begin with.
I understand you are a lawyer, but "After further discovery that could turn out to be wrong ... what matters is that there was some factual basis to begin with." does sound, to the lay person, a lot like throwing mud and seeing what sticks.
I guess it depends on how you define "throwing mud and seeing what sticks." To me, that implies a lack of investigation and recklessness as to the truth. "Your honor, the Defendant cheats on his wife! What's my basis for that allegation? I mean, it could be true, so let's depose him and find out!" That will get you sanctioned. In contrast: "Your honor, the Defendant cheats on his wife! We have a hotel maid that saw a woman enter his hotel room while he was traveling on business and leave the next morning." That's a plausible allegation that may or may not turn out to be true, depending on other facts.
Now just putting conspiracy theory hat for a moment, but can it be the real reason behind Travis walking out? Board got to know that this would come out and got rid of him to do some damage control?
Large organizations are always making decisions behind the scenes. I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy theory" in the "tin foil hat" sense. I would just call it a theory where actors conspired to oust Travis.
How long does Uber have left? Another post about Uber from yesterday said they had around a year left of runway.
As an aside:
Every day for at least the past month an Uber story talking about their failings has dominated Hacker News. I strongly believe that Uber's problems are extremely importantant, and deserve to be on the front page. But, its really tiring to talk about a company that is stumbling every single day when we could have posts about other things.
I suspect how long Uber has left is directly tied to Travis leaving - it was the main investors in the company that pushed him out. I suspect they used the threat of withholding a future round of funding to do so - with Travis out, I imagine Uber is safe to raise another round.
the mob wants to hear about Uber's problems, the mob upvotes Uber's problems, so there's a lot of content that the mob wants to read on the front page. wait a bit for the topic to cool down.
replace the mob with happy users if you wish.
disclaimer: i'm a part of the mob, it's a very interesting topic for me.
It's only the people in tech who know about Uber's problems. All of my friends who aren't in tech don't know anything about Uber's problems and use it regularly. Heck i still use it if the surge is below 1.5 since it's either Uber or Taxi.
>"It's only the people in tech who know about Uber's problems."
No it's anyone who reads the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times or watches Bloomberg too. I'm pretty sure that includes much more than techies. Uber has been featured on the front page of both of those newspapers and not just recently.
>"All of my friends who aren't in tech don't know anything about Uber's problems and use it regularly"
>No it's anyone who reads the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times or watches Bloomberg too. I'm pretty sure that includes much more than techies. Uber has been featured on the front page of both of those newspapers and not just recently.
Uber CEO being fired or Waymo law suit is a bigger story and a lot more people know about it. But i don't think people will stop using uber because of those two stories. Compare that to sexual harassment being rampant in Uber which could cause a lot more people to not use Uber out of ethics.
> It's only the people in tech who know about Uber's problems. All of my friends who aren't in tech don't know anything about Uber's problems and use it regularly.
Kalanick's resignation was literally the top story on the NYTimes homepage for a large chunk of the day yesterday, and it's still on the frontpage today (via a separate piece on the topic).
It's not at all just the people in tech who knew about Uber's issues, even before this week. At least since February, it definitely crossed the line into mainstream news. People who read mainstream news might still use Uber for various reasons (lack of other option in their city, price, inertia, apathy, etc.), but this story moved beyond tech news circles months ago.
> Kalanick's resignation was literally the top story on the NYTimes homepage for a large chunk of the day yesterday, and it's still on the frontpage today (via a separate piece on the topic).
Not all Uber clients are from the States and so do not read the NYTimes daily (and the newspapers around the other parts of the world usually have other more important things to talk about, we also have our own corrupt and nasty business-people).
Case in point, one of my best friends who works as a tech contractor for a big European defense company in the Arabian peninsula (were newspapers like the NYTimes to discuss about these kind of contracts we'd live in a much better world) and who has just praised to me about how wonderful Uber is because anytime when he comes back home (we live in Eastern Europe) it's a thousand times better to pick an Uber car from the airport than to try and put your faith in a taxi.
Considering the parent company of this forum (a startup accelerator) and the high profile of Uber in the startup world, I think it's appropriate to watch very closely how this unfolds. It should serve as a cautionary tale for many a future startup.
Uber isn't going anywhere as long as the industry remains viable. Worst-case scenario, the company is restructured and investors lose their shirts; but you wouldn't kill the world's most recognizable ride-hailing brand.
There are so many Uber stories is because it is so big, it is so well known, and, above all, because it does so many different things that are flagrantly wrong. So we get a flurry of stories on one topic, then something else wrong is uncovered and we get stories on that, and so on.
I count 4 Uber stories on the front page today. There have been a few every week since the past few months. Will this sordid saga ever end? I feel this is like watching a newsreel about the same topics every few days.
* get back to talking about [tech topic] that truly is tech
etc...
These are important issues. snowden was critically important to discuss. uber is important to learn from.
anyone attempting to shut down/stifle/limit discussion or examination/reflection of topics that stem from, affect, and, largely define, in the minds of those not in tech, the overall image of tech, should be regarded as having dubious intentions.
Don't overreact. The person you replied to was just expressing frustration with a "sordid saga" and questioned when it will end.
It's totally legitimate to feel that way. Conflating it with "stifling" and "limiting" discussion, then suggesting it has a dubious intentions. That's a little dramatic.
Sorry, I wasn't saying that he was stifling or had dubious intentions - I am saying in general, if one is too oft complaining, this could be construed...
So, don't overreact to my comment either :-)
It wasn't as heated as may have seemed.
---
The next unicorn idea is to be able to accurately convey the tone of a sentiment via text.... maybe all text should be "mood text" and have a font color demonstrating the tone/mood it was written in ;-)
Yes, I get where you are coming from. I know my comment is somewhat irrational. That is why I examined my own sentiment - why do I want this news to stop? Because it feels like a rehearsed newsreel, a daily television drama. I'm afraid that scrolling HN might soon become like scrolling facebook. Maybe its just personal over-saturation for me, sorry in that case.
in all of this drama, as others have mentioned that the board may have been calculating the release of travis and perhaps others, all I can think of is just how complicit and shady everyone else on the board is.
I can doubt they didnt know anything about uber's DNA and how much of a douche-factory they were running just to make a shit ton of money themselves.
While I think that uber (ride sharing in general) has greatly benefited myself and millions of others, I cannot think that the board is wholly altruistic at uber, and I think the whole top pulled shady crap to get where they are.
on the one hand, you want rogue companies to push the boundaries when nimby and laws which are obsolete are blocking evolution of how we live, but you also want fairness in how they accomplish this.
its like a Louis CK skit, "of course, but maybe";
Of course, Uber and ride-sharing is a great idea and millions of people benefit from it existing and it showed how taxi medallion services in places like NYC were an outdated and corrupt model lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many and now a black man can reliably get a ride uptown in minutes by the magic cab hailer in his pocket....
but maybe.... you didnt have to be a sexist, corrupt slimy douchebag to accomplish this such that your company isnt bleeding talent and the poster child for sexism in tech and actually managing to one-up zenifits HR debacle with your own literally worst HR department in history of tech stories... maybe...
Bill Gurley has a known reputation and history for being a shady VC. AngelList was created basically out of Naval's experience getting royally screwed by Gurley.
Why does this article not mention that when Kalanick found out that Levandowski had this material, he immediately told him that Uber didn't want it, and told him to destroy those discs? The Bloomberg article on this topic said this directly.
Perhaps for the same reason you didn't mention the possibility of contempt mentioned in the Bloomberg article?
There are multiple ways to tell a story. I realize partisans have discovered that yelling at journalists is a great way to distract from the underlying story, but it works better on Sunday shouty shows and swampy blogs.
That is less material to the story than the idea that Kalanick wasn't involved in some conspiracy to steal Waymo's tech. The media wants to propagate the story that Uber and Levandowski were conspiring to steal Waymo's technology, but this makes it clear that it wasn't the case, and if there was theft of secrets, it was Levandowski on his own.
TFA also does a poor job describing Levandowski's departure, leaving out the fact that the court effectively ordered them to do so if he wouldn't play ball.
So far the only thing we actually know is that Levandowski refuses to talk, for which he lost his job.
The media wants to tell any story that gets attention. Complaining about the media is a distraction, but at least here there's the amusement of accusing the media of conspiring to tell the story of a conspiracy that doesn't exist.
The contempt charge is less material to the story you are interested in talking about, but looks rather important to me. And we don't have proof of anything - Maybe Kalanick got cold feet partway through. We don't yet have sufficient detail to know what this means.
Although now that you shine a light on this, it does seem to demonstrate is that Kalanick went ahead with a key hire who was anteing stolen IP. Call that what you will, but I wouldn't hire a janitor who did that, nor would knowingly I work for anyone who would do that. And it is also further recklessness - even putting aside ethics and legality, who is to say Levandowski wouldn't do the same thing to Uber if he got a better offer?
I agree that the entire Levandowski mess is completely Kalanick's fault. He was in completely control when he hired him, and presumably overincentivized him with a $250 million pay package.
But that's a completely different issue than the original point. The point is that there was no conspiracy to steal Waymo's trade secrets. There was no conspiracy to use Waymo's technologies in Uber self-driving cars, who already had hundreds of engineers and professors working on it for years.
We don't know what the full conversation was between the two of them, but we do know from the article that once Kalanick knew that Levandowski had some sort of files, he told him to destroy it immediately and that he didn't want that to be used by Uber. I think that part is very clear.
I do not know that there was no conspiracy, and neither do you unless you have nonpublic information. We have a very narrow slice of information that has been filtered through the legal process.
Your particular slant on the story is great, enjoy. At least you've dropped the cheap media bashing; that was my primary point.
You're no longer making any sense. I still believe the media is terribly biased. And this is Waymo's own testimony that Kalanick asked to destroy the documents once he found out about them. How could there be a conspiracy?
I'm done. This is a pointless discussion. I will answer the question:
> How could there be a conspiracy?
You're posting in multiple threads in this discussion; you couldn't have missed that many people in this thread have pointed out the obvious; it could be a wink and nod. "Honey, don't steal any jewelry from your job at PreciousGemCo. That would be wrong. You know how I do love my diamonds..."
If you're unable to imagine other scenarios that fit the very few facts we have,
(1) perhaps you can talk to a CPA, hacker, attorney, con-man, or someone else who is familiar with fraud that's more subtle than Three Card Monte. And,
(2) I'd strongly suggest for your own good that you have someone you trust review any contracts you might want to sign.
Well, Kalanick told Levandowski to destroy the files immediately, and hired him knowing that he had taken the files from Waymo.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that. He's so desperate to win at self-driving cars that he'll hire Levandowski, even though Levandowski has proven himself to be shady? He's "telling" Levandowski (with a wink) to destroy the files, really meaning "keep a copy at home, don't let it ever touch our work computers, but keep feeding us the information"? Or what?
I guess, at a minimum, the fact that Uber tried to delay this information from getting into the court case means that it isn't innocent. (Or they're afraid that it looks bad enough that it's really going to cost them. But delaying disclosure makes it look bad, too...)
> and hired him knowing that he had taken the files from Waymo.
Google also bought 510 Systems, which was the company he founded while still working at Google. Levandowski proved himself to be shady at Google and Google not only didn't admonish him, they rewarded him by buying his side project he created while employed by Google.
Clearly the man is talented enough that both companies decided it was worth overlooking his past actions. If what was reported today is true, Uber at the very least admonished Levandowski and told him to destroy what he had taken and that they had no interest in that material and not to bring it to Uber.
Near as I can tell, the discovery process thus far has demonstrated that none of that material made its way to Uber. The only documents found reported thus far were some documents on a single personal laptop of one engineer. If any of Levandowski's documents had made their way to Uber, the discovery process would have found at least something given the number of keywords Google requested be searched for and the number of files searched.
Right now, the only thing that appears in doubt here is if he ever actually destroyed documents. I agree he's likely culpable, but I still don't see any reason for Uber to be culpable of anything more than knowingly hiring someone with a past history of being unscrupulous, that Google also employed knowing full well he actively unscrupulous in their employ.
It would be mighty ironic if Google was now sued by shareholders for negligence in how it had previously handled Levandowski.
Other articles on this subject note that upon hearing Levandowski possessed the stolen files, Kalanick advised him to destroy the stolen data and not bring it to Uber.
There is a podcast called The Dollop where one person essentially teaches another person about a particular subject. They recently did Uber and it was eye-opening to see just how shady this company has always been. I am not a fan of Uber but after listening to this I will never use them again.
Basically my impression since i first heard about them.
But many pushed them as just good old American "disrupters" of a "stale" market.
That is until the first dirty underwear regarding office shenanigans were aired, and then the twittering classes did a one-eighty in their view of Uber. And from that point on the company has been circling the drain.
I think both are true. Uber paved the way to significant improvements in taxi-ish services. Even traditional taxi services have bumped up their game in the face of actual competition. If at the end of all this we just wind up with Lyft, Uber still deserves some credit there.
With all that being said, I probably won't be happy with the outcome of the lawsuits surrounding the shenanigans either. What will likely happen is Uber will get some hefty fines. But the people who will pay those fines are Uber's customers (and potentially investors). The more focus we can put on criminal and civil penalties for the individuals involved, even if that meant literally every person in the company, the better.
The myth that you can build a billion-dollar business without some shady dealings needs to die. Startups are usually faced with hard choices if they want to survive.
Pretending like Kalanick himself endorsed sexual harassment is ridiculous. We don't know whether he knew, how much he knew, or how involved he was. All evidence points to "the trail of information stopped at HR."
I think we like to pretend that startups should be completely moral and make no questionable decisions because of how awful companies have acted in the past. While it's true we shouldn't let history repeat itself, it's false to say that merely disrupting a market is worth criticizing. And this is what disruption looks like.
Balancing morality/ethics with winning is incredibly difficult. You can be an upstanding person, thrust into the CEO chair, and still screw up. Then all of your mistakes are magnified to ridiculous proportions and people claim it's a pattern of behavior that they spotted from the start, but everyone else was too blinded to recognize. Sound familiar? Not even in Uber's case -- it's a story that's repeated itself over and over.
The straightforward response is "Well, startups shouldn't act so disreputably then." I agree that you shouldn't do anything that brings harm to individuals, nor should you ignore a toxic culture at your company. But refusing to even try -- to say that if you're not perfectly honest or perfectly moral, that you shouldn't be allowed to build a company -- is a formula for letting the true snakes dominate the world. Honest people who make mistakes are better than assholes with a thirst for power.
But you have to let them be willing to admit that they've made mistakes. Kalanick has done this.
Ironically the sister-post to your parent post complains about a vampire being killed in the 19th century, when it's the same mindset that caused that and that wants to crucify Kalanick.
The five-minutes-of-hate culture and public lynching culture is dangerous and has to end. In a year some contrarian will post an article on Medium with the title "Kalanick was unfairly ousted" and it'll be posted on reddit/r/TIL and the tide will turn as all the people whose opinions are an expression of whatever made it to the frontpage of their favorite aggregators reverse their opinion to fit the status quo.
Irrespective of this fair/unfair argument, what stands out is how we have completely forgotten the platform that Uber laid out to disrupt our commuting experience, just like Jeff B did with Amazon Store!
i am against Internet lynching, but there have been enough scandals and just plain toxicity coming out of Uber for several years now.
I know it was not quite your point, but idolizing assholes like Kalanick - "they may be a bit flawed, but they are brilliant businessmen/women", quite prevalent in the US, ends up in a lot of companies run by sociopathic assholes.
Jesus, this is a seriously overblown description of what's happened to the guy.
He hasn't been lynched, he hasn't been jailed, he hasn't had his riches taken away from him. He's been asked to endure one consequence of years of behavior that many, many of us don't approve of.
There's no "five minutes of hate" here, there's a lot of people in the world looking at someone who behaved badly, consistently, without showing any sign of changing their behavior, and saying "enough, you don't get to run a big business anymore".
Maybe you don't give a shit about the kind of business the guy built, and that's up to you, you don't have to give a shit, but acting like the rest of us are a lynch mob is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the situation.
Here is the problem, because there is only one of two arguments you can make.
1. He was so inept as CEO that he was unaware of all (it is a big list) the shady things putting the company he was the majority share holder of at risk that he deserves to be fired and have it crash and burn.
2. He was aware of the bulk of the shady things, that makes him complicit. As an endorser of Ubers lager pattern of behavior and over all toxic culture, he deserves to be fired.
There is NO way to defend Kalanick without sounding like a shill.
If you have black and white views of the world, you're unlikely to live a nuanced life.
Accusations of shillage without evidence also isn't allowed here, for what it's worth. You didn't accuse, but the sentiment is annoying. I think "apologist" is the word you're looking for.
Your comment is like fallacy bingo. E.g. false dichotomies are rarely enumerated as "1" and "2", but I suppose that makes it easier to call out.
The most straightforward third option is that it's very hard to manage 14k employees or be aware of what all of them are doing. It's not a minor thing to overlook, but again, the information flow stopped at HR.
As for Greyball, it's possible that some lieutenant got it into their heads to use that program to evade regulators, rather than Kalanick himself. Remember, the program was developed under false pretenses.
The "Hell" program was developed to get insights into their competitor. Contrast this with their "Heaven" program which is a god's-eye view of every Uber on the road. They pushed it much too far by abusing Lyft's API, but collecting info about a competitor is a pretty standard thing for a startup to do.
These defenses don't stand when he is compensated as highly as he is. He also structured the shares in such a way as to maintain control even when selling off parts of the company. If you are going to absorb an oversized portion of the reward and make sure to keep overall control, then you need to accept the responsibility.
> Pretending like Kalanick himself endorsed sexual harassment is ridiculous. We don't know whether he knew, how much he knew, or how involved he was. All evidence points to "the trail of information stopped at HR."
And his "infamous" Miami memo, where he documents to the company what kinds of sexual activity between employees at the company are okay, and then follows up with a lament that "because he's the CEO, then he's not getting any employee action :("
And the fact that HR on several occasions had to tell him to tone down the sexual content of multiple communications, and I'm inclined to be a little more cynical than "poor wide-eyed Travis".
Of course the perfect is the enemy of the good, in this as in all things. That said, if you don't feel that you can start a business and run it both legally and ethically, maybe consider not starting a business.
Nobody forced Travis Kalanick to found a company that couldn't work in the then-extant regulatory structure. Nobody forced him to work around the problem by just flat out ignoring the law and hoping he could lobby to get it changed before he got called to task for it. Nobody forced him to come up with a long-term profitability plan that required being able to eventually charge monopoly prices. Nobody forced him to try to undercut his competitors by doing an end-run around employee protections. He always had the option to go be an angel investor or something instead.
He chose a model which could not be done ethically and upon realizing that decided to pursue it anyway. I'm not certain what that makes him, but it sure doesn't make him a victim.
On the surface, this is a reasonable critique. But it conflates ethics with the law.
It's helpful to remember that we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. That's a very important distinction, and it's why we see the law co-evolve with society.
If you're arguing that under no circumstances is it ethical to found a company that doesn't toe the letter of the law, then you've got a tough case. Are you sure it's ethical that you're not allowed to offer someone a ride in exchange for money?
This extends to other companies. Airbnb is a prime example. Aside from a few corner cases (one of the worst being SF), Airbnb has been a positive influence. And it never would've happened if they had been too shy to act.
You can argue it's unethical, but meanwhile the world rolls on. It's much more effective to accept it and to dominate the game. But you won't if you refuse to play.
Listening to The Dollop is a great reminder of how entirely fucked up things have been in America in the past. Last lobotomy? 1967. Last "vampire killed" 1892 (or 93). It gives me hope that no matter what madness happens in the present, it has been worse before.
Had there been no Uber, there wouldn't have been Lyft. Uber is not just the first-comer or pioneer but it also fought most of the first-fights with city officials and Taxi unions which actually gave confidence to Lyft for their survival!
Of course not but they deserve hella credit for this. Also i think with all the major investigation and changes they are doing more than makes up for lot of bad things they did. If anything justice is served and people should move on.
Uber has done a tremendous amount of really shitty things. And for most of it, there has been no "justice" served.
Furthermore, you're taking it as a given that Uber flagrantly violating local laws in order to launch ridesharing is a good thing, but not everybody will agree with that.
Many people who had a better option than driving drunk will do. Many parents who wait for their kids to get home safe after parties will agree. The social good done is way higher to totally justify using some shady software to evade authorities. Ignoring sexual harassment complain was a huge mistake. But pretty much everyone involved was fired , an investigation by holder was carried out and most of his suggestions are being implemented. You have clearly not stayed in a city with really shitty taxi service.
What you describe is something that literally any car-sharing company anywhere provides, including taxis. This does not even remotely mean that "justice" has been served for any of the atrocities Uber has committed.
You are ignoring the fact that regulations which protected taxis would not allow ride sharing companies like uber or lyft to exist. Uber made it possible to have those car sharing companies.Taxis are awful in so many cities. It is impossible to expect quick pick-up in cities like buffalo,NY. Many worse things happen in loads of companies . They get away with it because media is not interested. I totally believe the massive upheaval more than makes up for their mistakes.
Uber chose one route to make it possible. That doesn't mean other ways didn't exist (e.g. lobbying for change).
Furthermore, the fact that Uber led the way here still doesn't mean "justice" has been served for anything, especially since most of the horrible things Uber has done were done after Uber opened up the market (and past actions can never be said to provide "justice" for future actions).
"horrible things": oh summer child. I would categorize most of these as misdemeanor. Try to take a breath and really look at it. Except for susan fowler case other things aren't that bad, except for firing everyone responsible I don't see what else should have been done.
I get the impression that you're not actually aware of even half of what Uber's done. Maybe you've only been paying attention for the past few months, but Uber's been doing a lot of bad stuff for many years now.
All of those things could have done without systematically breaking the law at every turn.
We shouldn't let corporations unilaterally decide which regulations they want to follow; if they think some laws are unfair they should work to change them through the democratic process like the rest of us.
Well I for one am glad to have these services at my disposal earlier than later. There would be way less innovation if everyone insisted on doing things right. Which laws are broken if it is good or bad is a subjective matter. Some people though those laws were unnecessary and backward. Some people thought otherwise. IMO people got better service and drivers got income because of that brash behavior.Breaking those laws probably saved more lives than not breaking them.
Allowing multinational corporations carte blanche to disregard any law they want is not a precedent I want our society to set. Even if it worked out in this case (which is very debatable), its a very slippery slope.
The fact that Lyft is US-only really has nothing at all to do with this claim. There are other car-sharing companies in other countries (for example, Didi Chuxing).
Hmmm... from the outside it looked like Lyft forced Uber into the "everybody can drive" business model. Before Lyft, Uber was using licensed Limousine operators. Lyft started this and Uber followed, if I remember correctly.
You are probably right that Uber had all the attention and "fought" more.
I wonder if the timing of Alphabet's spinning-out of Waymo was driven or influenced by a desire to, as much as possible, distance Alphabet and, more importantly, the Google brand from what they knew would become an ugly legal battle.
Why does the media keep calling Levandowski a plain old engineer? If Levandowski qualifies as a nameless engineer the title should read "Waymo filing says engineer knew engineer had Google info." Levandowski is a well known tech entrepreneur and was before this case, he wasn't just some worker bee Uber hired to sling code that stole IP from Google before leaving.
It sort of feels like the VW emissions scandal being blamed on "engineers". No, in both cases they were well compensated, well connected, seasoned tech executives and knew what they were doing and thought they could get away with it because of their position (and likely also from experience.)
Yeah, I always do a double-take when I read engineer, because I take it to mean that it was some other engineer, because obviously if it was Levandowski, they'd have mentioned him by name.
He's literally the protagonist of this whole drama, and they keep referring to him as 'engineer'. WTF.
From over 10 years of using and kinda understanding the taxi industry, a different leader than Travis could not have entered that market. I'm not saying he's correct, but it takes a bully to scare a bully.
Headline choice is editorializing - the actual quote "Mr.Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should
not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any
Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber
that he had destroyed the discs"
Headline choice is perfectly fine. Not only is it 100% accurate, but it's also the germane information that leads to the following statement:
> This would obviously be a strong piece of support for Waymo’s case, since it establishes a timeline in which Uber was aware of Levandowski’s alleged actions even prior to finalizing their acquisition of Otto, which would in turn mean that Uber can’t claim to be completely separated from Levandowski’s actions.
Fun fact: The Nazis looked to American Eugenics and race purity laws as an inspiration. It was only after the horrors of WW2 came out that the US rejected these policies.
that doesn't sound like a "fact". I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't believe you until you provide a source, i.e. some nazi expounding on how they never would have had the idea for racial purity if it hadn't been for america.
I took “looked to American...laws for inspiration” not to mean they got the idea to care about racial purity from America (it was globally a common idea for millenia before the Nazis, and remains common today) but that, in terms of concrete policy to realize those pre-existing concernd, the racial laws of the US at the time were among the sources they consulted for ideas.
without any sort of concrete evidence that the national socialists were actively modeling their policies after US policy, I have no reason to believe this either. Two countries can have backwards policies without one having been "inspiration" for the other.
> During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In "Mein Kampf," published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
> Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
> Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenics leader Madison Grant, calling his race-based eugenics book, "The Passing of the Great Race," his "bible."
You might want to check the date of the US Supreme Court's Loving decision. The state of Alabama still had eugenics based laws on "miscegenation" until the 1970's.
You might want to check the date of the US Supreme Court's Loving decision. The state of Alabama still had eugenics based laws on "miscegenation" until the 1970's.
U.S. declaring that mercury is no longer harmful and is safe for children: a couple weeks ago. It's not like the exact same type of stuff isn't still happening today, just no one cares until twenty years later or whatever.
I don't see anywhere in this article or in the Google search claiming that the EPA made a statement that mercury is no longer harmful or that it's safe for children.
I do not want such a company to thrive with these type of practices.
I thought they were going to win against Lyft with all these shady practices. And so I just shrug it off and chalk it up for those dirty companies stepping on people.
Glad that the public have been more empathic and a conscious on these disgusting practices. Gives me hope for the future in term of businesses and higher standards.
I do not condone all the dirty practices but i always find it amusing how lyft gets a good guy trophy. Well without Uber being there doing the dirty work of fighting regulations Lyft would not exist. I would not want Lyft to go away because it is nice to have that option and competition but I would not wish for Uber to go down after all the major changes they did in last few months. Many companies get away with doing far worse. Uber more than redeemed themself.
> "Mr.Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber that he had destroyed the discs"
Emphasis mine. Does anyone else find this to be particularly odd wording for 2016/7? When was the last time anyone here that is tech savvy use multiple disks for storage of anything? Desktop and laptop hard drives can now hold multiple terabytes of data and thumb drives now hold in excess of one terabyte. Plus, most people now use drives not discs. Most laptops don't even contain disk drives and haven't for years.
I'm probably alone here, but this detail alone makes this heresay seem suspicious to me. Did anyone else find the mention of multiple discs in 2016/7 odd as well?
Is there any example of a city/state government getting an exorbitant amount from Uber for violation of a statute regarding taxis? I imagine if one were to do it, many others would follow - everyone's looking for a buck.
This is one of the dumber articles I've read on Uber. I don't think the author has used cabs much and is just theorizing. In a mid-size American city, I've had cabs cancel on me around half the times I've called them, leaving me stranded. I've been through an experience where someone with a fake taxi license fleeced me charging me 3X with physical intimidation. I know someone who was robbed at gunpoint by his fake cab driver. The author misrepresents the taxi industry as some sort of a philanthropic order of saints. The only times cabs have been reliable for me are when going to and from airports.
Uber is fundamentally different from regulated taxis. Also, there's no moral framework for the taxi-related regulations (medallion, commercial insurance, etc.). They're both a relic of an age that has passed and a prime example of regulatory capture.
It is worth noting that the byline for the article states this:
> Benjamin Edelman is an associate professor at Harvard Business School and an adviser to various companies that compete against major platforms
That is an interesting piece. But I think it somewhat contradicts itself. On the one hand it claims, "The company’s cultural dysfunction [...] stems from the very nature of the company’s competitive advantage: Uber’s business model is predicated on lawbreaking." On the other, it points out that Lyft was actually the groundbreaker in using unlicensed drivers; in fact it links to a 2013 Uber policy statement [0] detailing Uber's plan to start using unlicensed drivers only after competitors had been doing so unimpeded in a given metro area.
The point is, Lyft was even more aggressive in ignoring the relevant legal strictures than Uber was; yet I have not seen any stories about a dysfunctional culture at Lyft, which, by the author's argument, should be even more inevitable. Indeed I know hardly anything about Lyft as a company, except that their service has worked for me when I've tried it, and the drivers seem to prefer it over Uber. If I had to say what seems to distinguish the two businesses, based on what (little) I know, I would say that Lyft seems more interested in providing a good service, while Uber seems more interested in making lots of money. I am tempted to conclude that Uber's problems are rooted more in a general lack of concern for customers, drivers, and employees than in the fact that their business model is somewhat outside the law.
Does Travis leaving now prevent him from returning at a later time as CEO under opportune circumstances? PR could spin a return if Uber starts failing and hail Travis as having learned how to lead.
In other words, does anyone think this could be temporary?
All this Uber talk is making me dizzy. Yeah, sure, Uber is a shitty company but there are tons of them. This disproportional attention to Uber is blindsiding everyone to a lot of them.
Maybe, someone should also check out Lyft for their employee treatment, company culture, and business practices. Because, apparently, they are the good guys and a lot of people are switching to them.
While I do agree with you that a couple of Uber stories everyday with no real extra info are a bit too much, let's not put everyone in the same basket.
This is perhaps the most important claim made by Waymo since the initial filing. Waymo had already built up a preponderance of evidence that Levandowski knowingly and intentionally stole their information. There's no way he's dancing out of that at this point. But up until now, they haven't provided any evidence or, I believe, made the claim that Uber knew what was up, which puts them in the awkward position of suing someone (Uber) who may have had nothing to do with Levandowski's crime. There was lots of innuendo (Travis Kalanick took many long walks at night with Levandowski, with the discussions totally undocumented) but no smoking gun. However, if they can demonstrate to a jury that Uber execs definitely knew what Levandowski did and ignored it, that's the sort of thing that changes this lawsuit from an expensive distraction into an existential threat to Uber's self-driving car business.
Reasonable doubt is the criminal law standard, and is relatively hard to achieve since any credible theory by the defense can undermine it.
This is a civil lawsuit, so probably goes to preponderance of evidence. That's a lot easier--the plaintiff only has to prove it's more likely than not that the defendant was liable.
Jury or not doesn't really come into it, except that formal criminal trials (above an infraction, at least) always involve a jury.
141 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] threadTo be sure, there's a great deal of smoke around Levandowski and the Otto acquisition, and probably some fire as well.
With regards to allegations like the ones here, the backup might be, e.g. emails that tend to suggest Kalanick knew about the misappropriated IP, or even an interview with a witness who said Kalanick knew. After further discovery that could turn out to be wrong--the emails might not reveal the full context, or the witness misinterpreted the situation, or, more likely, there is simply a greater volume of emails or testimony suggesting that he did not know. That's fine under Rule 11, what matters is that there was some factual basis to begin with.
As an aside: Every day for at least the past month an Uber story talking about their failings has dominated Hacker News. I strongly believe that Uber's problems are extremely importantant, and deserve to be on the front page. But, its really tiring to talk about a company that is stumbling every single day when we could have posts about other things.
replace the mob with happy users if you wish.
disclaimer: i'm a part of the mob, it's a very interesting topic for me.
No it's anyone who reads the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times or watches Bloomberg too. I'm pretty sure that includes much more than techies. Uber has been featured on the front page of both of those newspapers and not just recently.
>"All of my friends who aren't in tech don't know anything about Uber's problems and use it regularly"
That's purely anecdotal.
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2017-06/travis-kalanick-uber-r...
Uber CEO being fired or Waymo law suit is a bigger story and a lot more people know about it. But i don't think people will stop using uber because of those two stories. Compare that to sexual harassment being rampant in Uber which could cause a lot more people to not use Uber out of ethics.
>That's purely anecdotal.
I didn't say otherwise.
Kalanick's resignation was literally the top story on the NYTimes homepage for a large chunk of the day yesterday, and it's still on the frontpage today (via a separate piece on the topic).
It's not at all just the people in tech who knew about Uber's issues, even before this week. At least since February, it definitely crossed the line into mainstream news. People who read mainstream news might still use Uber for various reasons (lack of other option in their city, price, inertia, apathy, etc.), but this story moved beyond tech news circles months ago.
Not all Uber clients are from the States and so do not read the NYTimes daily (and the newspapers around the other parts of the world usually have other more important things to talk about, we also have our own corrupt and nasty business-people).
Case in point, one of my best friends who works as a tech contractor for a big European defense company in the Arabian peninsula (were newspapers like the NYTimes to discuss about these kind of contracts we'd live in a much better world) and who has just praised to me about how wonderful Uber is because anytime when he comes back home (we live in Eastern Europe) it's a thousand times better to pick an Uber car from the airport than to try and put your faith in a taxi.
Thankfully karma finally intervened!
* why cant we shutup about snowden already
* stop posting about uber
* plenty of other examples
* get back to talking about [tech topic] that truly is tech
etc...
These are important issues. snowden was critically important to discuss. uber is important to learn from.
anyone attempting to shut down/stifle/limit discussion or examination/reflection of topics that stem from, affect, and, largely define, in the minds of those not in tech, the overall image of tech, should be regarded as having dubious intentions.
It's totally legitimate to feel that way. Conflating it with "stifling" and "limiting" discussion, then suggesting it has a dubious intentions. That's a little dramatic.
So, don't overreact to my comment either :-)
It wasn't as heated as may have seemed.
---
The next unicorn idea is to be able to accurately convey the tone of a sentiment via text.... maybe all text should be "mood text" and have a font color demonstrating the tone/mood it was written in ;-)
thieving_magpie ponders, then blushes. Slowly looking up he whispers "Good idea sam".
P.S. 5 now.
I can doubt they didnt know anything about uber's DNA and how much of a douche-factory they were running just to make a shit ton of money themselves.
While I think that uber (ride sharing in general) has greatly benefited myself and millions of others, I cannot think that the board is wholly altruistic at uber, and I think the whole top pulled shady crap to get where they are.
on the one hand, you want rogue companies to push the boundaries when nimby and laws which are obsolete are blocking evolution of how we live, but you also want fairness in how they accomplish this.
its like a Louis CK skit, "of course, but maybe";
Of course, Uber and ride-sharing is a great idea and millions of people benefit from it existing and it showed how taxi medallion services in places like NYC were an outdated and corrupt model lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many and now a black man can reliably get a ride uptown in minutes by the magic cab hailer in his pocket....
but maybe.... you didnt have to be a sexist, corrupt slimy douchebag to accomplish this such that your company isnt bleeding talent and the poster child for sexism in tech and actually managing to one-up zenifits HR debacle with your own literally worst HR department in history of tech stories... maybe...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-22/ex-uber-c...
There are multiple ways to tell a story. I realize partisans have discovered that yelling at journalists is a great way to distract from the underlying story, but it works better on Sunday shouty shows and swampy blogs.
So far the only thing we actually know is that Levandowski refuses to talk, for which he lost his job.
The contempt charge is less material to the story you are interested in talking about, but looks rather important to me. And we don't have proof of anything - Maybe Kalanick got cold feet partway through. We don't yet have sufficient detail to know what this means.
Although now that you shine a light on this, it does seem to demonstrate is that Kalanick went ahead with a key hire who was anteing stolen IP. Call that what you will, but I wouldn't hire a janitor who did that, nor would knowingly I work for anyone who would do that. And it is also further recklessness - even putting aside ethics and legality, who is to say Levandowski wouldn't do the same thing to Uber if he got a better offer?
But that's a completely different issue than the original point. The point is that there was no conspiracy to steal Waymo's trade secrets. There was no conspiracy to use Waymo's technologies in Uber self-driving cars, who already had hundreds of engineers and professors working on it for years.
We don't know what the full conversation was between the two of them, but we do know from the article that once Kalanick knew that Levandowski had some sort of files, he told him to destroy it immediately and that he didn't want that to be used by Uber. I think that part is very clear.
Your particular slant on the story is great, enjoy. At least you've dropped the cheap media bashing; that was my primary point.
> How could there be a conspiracy?
You're posting in multiple threads in this discussion; you couldn't have missed that many people in this thread have pointed out the obvious; it could be a wink and nod. "Honey, don't steal any jewelry from your job at PreciousGemCo. That would be wrong. You know how I do love my diamonds..."
If you're unable to imagine other scenarios that fit the very few facts we have,
(1) perhaps you can talk to a CPA, hacker, attorney, con-man, or someone else who is familiar with fraud that's more subtle than Three Card Monte. And,
(2) I'd strongly suggest for your own good that you have someone you trust review any contracts you might want to sign.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that. He's so desperate to win at self-driving cars that he'll hire Levandowski, even though Levandowski has proven himself to be shady? He's "telling" Levandowski (with a wink) to destroy the files, really meaning "keep a copy at home, don't let it ever touch our work computers, but keep feeding us the information"? Or what?
I guess, at a minimum, the fact that Uber tried to delay this information from getting into the court case means that it isn't innocent. (Or they're afraid that it looks bad enough that it's really going to cost them. But delaying disclosure makes it look bad, too...)
Google also bought 510 Systems, which was the company he founded while still working at Google. Levandowski proved himself to be shady at Google and Google not only didn't admonish him, they rewarded him by buying his side project he created while employed by Google.
Clearly the man is talented enough that both companies decided it was worth overlooking his past actions. If what was reported today is true, Uber at the very least admonished Levandowski and told him to destroy what he had taken and that they had no interest in that material and not to bring it to Uber.
Near as I can tell, the discovery process thus far has demonstrated that none of that material made its way to Uber. The only documents found reported thus far were some documents on a single personal laptop of one engineer. If any of Levandowski's documents had made their way to Uber, the discovery process would have found at least something given the number of keywords Google requested be searched for and the number of files searched.
Right now, the only thing that appears in doubt here is if he ever actually destroyed documents. I agree he's likely culpable, but I still don't see any reason for Uber to be culpable of anything more than knowingly hiring someone with a past history of being unscrupulous, that Google also employed knowing full well he actively unscrupulous in their employ.
It would be mighty ironic if Google was now sued by shareholders for negligence in how it had previously handled Levandowski.
I've missed this part. Have a pointer?
In any case, any shady behavior while at Google may be colorable noise in the PR battle, but is unlikely to have any relevance in court.
Never heard that before, but I'm totally stealing it from you.
[0] http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/jennifer-lawrenc...
Podcast link: http://thedollop.libsyn.com/271-uber
But many pushed them as just good old American "disrupters" of a "stale" market.
That is until the first dirty underwear regarding office shenanigans were aired, and then the twittering classes did a one-eighty in their view of Uber. And from that point on the company has been circling the drain.
With all that being said, I probably won't be happy with the outcome of the lawsuits surrounding the shenanigans either. What will likely happen is Uber will get some hefty fines. But the people who will pay those fines are Uber's customers (and potentially investors). The more focus we can put on criminal and civil penalties for the individuals involved, even if that meant literally every person in the company, the better.
Pretending like Kalanick himself endorsed sexual harassment is ridiculous. We don't know whether he knew, how much he knew, or how involved he was. All evidence points to "the trail of information stopped at HR."
I think we like to pretend that startups should be completely moral and make no questionable decisions because of how awful companies have acted in the past. While it's true we shouldn't let history repeat itself, it's false to say that merely disrupting a market is worth criticizing. And this is what disruption looks like.
Balancing morality/ethics with winning is incredibly difficult. You can be an upstanding person, thrust into the CEO chair, and still screw up. Then all of your mistakes are magnified to ridiculous proportions and people claim it's a pattern of behavior that they spotted from the start, but everyone else was too blinded to recognize. Sound familiar? Not even in Uber's case -- it's a story that's repeated itself over and over.
The straightforward response is "Well, startups shouldn't act so disreputably then." I agree that you shouldn't do anything that brings harm to individuals, nor should you ignore a toxic culture at your company. But refusing to even try -- to say that if you're not perfectly honest or perfectly moral, that you shouldn't be allowed to build a company -- is a formula for letting the true snakes dominate the world. Honest people who make mistakes are better than assholes with a thirst for power.
But you have to let them be willing to admit that they've made mistakes. Kalanick has done this.
Kidding aside, at those levels you have to manage all of that. PR is probably just as important as the tech.
The five-minutes-of-hate culture and public lynching culture is dangerous and has to end. In a year some contrarian will post an article on Medium with the title "Kalanick was unfairly ousted" and it'll be posted on reddit/r/TIL and the tide will turn as all the people whose opinions are an expression of whatever made it to the frontpage of their favorite aggregators reverse their opinion to fit the status quo.
Irrespective of this fair/unfair argument, what stands out is how we have completely forgotten the platform that Uber laid out to disrupt our commuting experience, just like Jeff B did with Amazon Store!
I know it was not quite your point, but idolizing assholes like Kalanick - "they may be a bit flawed, but they are brilliant businessmen/women", quite prevalent in the US, ends up in a lot of companies run by sociopathic assholes.
Leave the fawning to sycopanthic media, please.
He hasn't been lynched, he hasn't been jailed, he hasn't had his riches taken away from him. He's been asked to endure one consequence of years of behavior that many, many of us don't approve of.
There's no "five minutes of hate" here, there's a lot of people in the world looking at someone who behaved badly, consistently, without showing any sign of changing their behavior, and saying "enough, you don't get to run a big business anymore".
Maybe you don't give a shit about the kind of business the guy built, and that's up to you, you don't have to give a shit, but acting like the rest of us are a lynch mob is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the situation.
1. He was so inept as CEO that he was unaware of all (it is a big list) the shady things putting the company he was the majority share holder of at risk that he deserves to be fired and have it crash and burn.
2. He was aware of the bulk of the shady things, that makes him complicit. As an endorser of Ubers lager pattern of behavior and over all toxic culture, he deserves to be fired.
There is NO way to defend Kalanick without sounding like a shill.
Accusations of shillage without evidence also isn't allowed here, for what it's worth. You didn't accuse, but the sentiment is annoying. I think "apologist" is the word you're looking for.
Your comment is like fallacy bingo. E.g. false dichotomies are rarely enumerated as "1" and "2", but I suppose that makes it easier to call out.
The most straightforward third option is that it's very hard to manage 14k employees or be aware of what all of them are doing. It's not a minor thing to overlook, but again, the information flow stopped at HR.
As for Greyball, it's possible that some lieutenant got it into their heads to use that program to evade regulators, rather than Kalanick himself. Remember, the program was developed under false pretenses.
The "Hell" program was developed to get insights into their competitor. Contrast this with their "Heaven" program which is a god's-eye view of every Uber on the road. They pushed it much too far by abusing Lyft's API, but collecting info about a competitor is a pretty standard thing for a startup to do.
The list goes on.
There is an old saying that we don't often use any more: "the fish stinks from the head".
On the other side we have this:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/nintendos-ceo-takes-50-...
Honestly who do you want to work for? Who should we be praising?
I know the choice is clear for me, and one that is very black and white.
Do you have an explanation for why Uber has been outed with so much more shadiness than most (if not all) other billion dollar tech companies?
Have they done more? Are they worse at PR? Something else? Do you dispute that they have been exposed for more shadiness?
And his "infamous" Miami memo, where he documents to the company what kinds of sexual activity between employees at the company are okay, and then follows up with a lament that "because he's the CEO, then he's not getting any employee action :("
And the fact that HR on several occasions had to tell him to tone down the sexual content of multiple communications, and I'm inclined to be a little more cynical than "poor wide-eyed Travis".
Nobody forced Travis Kalanick to found a company that couldn't work in the then-extant regulatory structure. Nobody forced him to work around the problem by just flat out ignoring the law and hoping he could lobby to get it changed before he got called to task for it. Nobody forced him to come up with a long-term profitability plan that required being able to eventually charge monopoly prices. Nobody forced him to try to undercut his competitors by doing an end-run around employee protections. He always had the option to go be an angel investor or something instead.
He chose a model which could not be done ethically and upon realizing that decided to pursue it anyway. I'm not certain what that makes him, but it sure doesn't make him a victim.
It's helpful to remember that we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. That's a very important distinction, and it's why we see the law co-evolve with society.
If you're arguing that under no circumstances is it ethical to found a company that doesn't toe the letter of the law, then you've got a tough case. Are you sure it's ethical that you're not allowed to offer someone a ride in exchange for money?
This extends to other companies. Airbnb is a prime example. Aside from a few corner cases (one of the worst being SF), Airbnb has been a positive influence. And it never would've happened if they had been too shy to act.
You can argue it's unethical, but meanwhile the world rolls on. It's much more effective to accept it and to dominate the game. But you won't if you refuse to play.
The myth that sweeping statements like these are ever true needs to die.
Lots of people, even on Twitter, have been skeptical of Über for quite some time.
Uber has done a tremendous amount of really shitty things. And for most of it, there has been no "justice" served.
Furthermore, you're taking it as a given that Uber flagrantly violating local laws in order to launch ridesharing is a good thing, but not everybody will agree with that.
Furthermore, the fact that Uber led the way here still doesn't mean "justice" has been served for anything, especially since most of the horrible things Uber has done were done after Uber opened up the market (and past actions can never be said to provide "justice" for future actions).
We shouldn't let corporations unilaterally decide which regulations they want to follow; if they think some laws are unfair they should work to change them through the democratic process like the rest of us.
Exactly. 1.
You are probably right that Uber had all the attention and "fought" more.
I remember Scour. That thing was scummy as all get-out.
It sort of feels like the VW emissions scandal being blamed on "engineers". No, in both cases they were well compensated, well connected, seasoned tech executives and knew what they were doing and thought they could get away with it because of their position (and likely also from experience.)
He's literally the protagonist of this whole drama, and they keep referring to him as 'engineer'. WTF.
> This would obviously be a strong piece of support for Waymo’s case, since it establishes a timeline in which Uber was aware of Levandowski’s alleged actions even prior to finalizing their acquisition of Otto, which would in turn mean that Uber can’t claim to be completely separated from Levandowski’s actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
It's a chilling read, not for the faint of heart.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis...
> During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In "Mein Kampf," published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception (of immigration) are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
> Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
> Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenics leader Madison Grant, calling his race-based eugenics book, "The Passing of the Great Race," his "bible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization_in_Ca...
Or you can just google trump EPA mercury and take your pick of sources.
I do not want such a company to thrive with these type of practices.
I thought they were going to win against Lyft with all these shady practices. And so I just shrug it off and chalk it up for those dirty companies stepping on people.
Glad that the public have been more empathic and a conscious on these disgusting practices. Gives me hope for the future in term of businesses and higher standards.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that Uber should get away with it.
> Uber more than redeemed themself.
Umm... how?
Emphasis mine. Does anyone else find this to be particularly odd wording for 2016/7? When was the last time anyone here that is tech savvy use multiple disks for storage of anything? Desktop and laptop hard drives can now hold multiple terabytes of data and thumb drives now hold in excess of one terabyte. Plus, most people now use drives not discs. Most laptops don't even contain disk drives and haven't for years.
I'm probably alone here, but this detail alone makes this heresay seem suspicious to me. Did anyone else find the mention of multiple discs in 2016/7 odd as well?
Uber is fundamentally different from regulated taxis. Also, there's no moral framework for the taxi-related regulations (medallion, commercial insurance, etc.). They're both a relic of an age that has passed and a prime example of regulatory capture.
It is worth noting that the byline for the article states this:
> Benjamin Edelman is an associate professor at Harvard Business School and an adviser to various companies that compete against major platforms
I wonder what 'major platforms'.
The point is, Lyft was even more aggressive in ignoring the relevant legal strictures than Uber was; yet I have not seen any stories about a dysfunctional culture at Lyft, which, by the author's argument, should be even more inevitable. Indeed I know hardly anything about Lyft as a company, except that their service has worked for me when I've tried it, and the drivers seem to prefer it over Uber. If I had to say what seems to distinguish the two businesses, based on what (little) I know, I would say that Lyft seems more interested in providing a good service, while Uber seems more interested in making lots of money. I am tempted to conclude that Uber's problems are rooted more in a general lack of concern for customers, drivers, and employees than in the fact that their business model is somewhat outside the law.
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20150910144736/http:/newsroom.ube...
In other words, does anyone think this could be temporary?
Maybe, someone should also check out Lyft for their employee treatment, company culture, and business practices. Because, apparently, they are the good guys and a lot of people are switching to them.
Since this is a jury trial, they only need to demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt, no?
This is a civil lawsuit, so probably goes to preponderance of evidence. That's a lot easier--the plaintiff only has to prove it's more likely than not that the defendant was liable.
Jury or not doesn't really come into it, except that formal criminal trials (above an infraction, at least) always involve a jury.