Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabbo | Hacker News Reader

And now we see the scapegoat being thrown under the bus.

Google claims Uber execs were meeting with Levandowski long before he left Google, that his entire leaving Google to form Otto (which would be soon bought by Uber) was planned alongside Uber.

Now Uber is saying "Hey, we didn't know anything about that, but I think you guys really should go after this guy here". Somehow, given Uber's reputation as a moral and ethical company, I am not shocked by this development.

Edit: And another thought- why wouldn't Levandowski now walk into the justice department and say "Give me immunity, and I'll give you all the evidence that Uber was in on this plan from the start". If Uber are going to screw him over, why wouldn't he return the favour?

View on HN

> And now we see the scapegoat being thrown under the bus.

Yeah, in official communications, of course. I haven't been following the story that closely, but I wonder if things are actually adversarial and turning into a blame game behind the scenes at Uber, or whether they are just executing on a united defense strategy.

>"Give me immunity, and I'll give you all the evidence that Uber was in on this plan from the start"

I get that Uber is a toxic company, but I'm not sure if immunity is a good idea.

"If you steal on behalf of Big Corp and gets caught, you can just rat out Big Corp and get off scot-free."

Is that really the sort of signal that we want our court systems to send out?

yes. we absolutely want to encourage whistle blowers.

obviously the level of immunity will vary based on the circumstances of each case, but again, we absolutely want to encourage this type of behavior.

Whistle blower tend to be lower on the totem pole. If it really is conspiracy your not likely going to see anyone in the court offer immunities for something he benefited hundreds of millions of dollars for.

That can all be worked out as part of his plea deal.

> yes. we absolutely want to encourage whistle blowers.

What? Levandowski can't be a whistle blower here because he had a central role in the (alleged) criminal activity. The case wouldn't even exist without him.

If the allegations are true, the best he's going to get for turning on Uber is a plea deal.

How would he be a whistle blower? He didn't allegedly witness it, he allegedly did the deed!

Replace "Big Corp" with "organized crime" and "steal" with... well, "steal" may stay - and yes, I think courts already encourage that, and with good reason - ultimately, it's vital to be able to catch the people actually scheming, and not just the pawns executing those schemes.

I think it's pretty rare for courts to offer full immunity to people involved in organized crime, and they definitely don't offer it to the highest level targets.

Levandowski may not be the mastermind behind the whole thing, but his going along with it is the only reason it was even possible. And he made a ton of money from it. There's no way he's going to get immunity.

I didn't mean immunity, just leniency.

In this case, I'm convinced that Levandowski will not get away scot-free.

IIUC, much of American corporate law works like this - be the one to bring us this info, and we'll take it easy on you. They then go harder after the individuals/companies who held out - trying to maximize the prisoners dilemma.

I don't think immunity is on the table..maybe a commuted sentence? 2-5 years? He's rich so it'll probably be home arrest, or just probation or something.

If I were an Uber investor or Uber management I'd be rereading all the contracts for ways to claw back his payment.

> I get that Uber is a toxic company, but I'm not sure if immunity is a good idea.

I don't think immunity protects you from civil damages, though.. just the criminal penalties. So, still not a great trade for Levandowski if he makes a deal.

Especially since he is hundreds of millions of dollars richer for the whole exchange

Well, if people consistently rat out the big corp (because its now better to do so than not) then cost/success rate of theft should hopefully become untenable, and they'd stop trying to find people to steal for them.

And ofc, the big corp is clearly the preferred target, since they're much more likely to repeatedly commit crimes (and at larger scales) than the individual

Cleanest way to beat a tagteam is to convince them they're enemies

I'm sure Levandowski would gladly lie under that bus in order to keep his proceeds from the sale. If he tried to get revenge those proceeds might very well be in jeopardy.

I'm thinking being terminated with cause will have a negative effect on the Otto transaction. Did they just hand him $680M on day one? I think deals like this are structured with progress payments, milestones and maybe incentives for hitting milestones early.

I dont think it matters if Uber failed to do proper due diligence, once the paperwork is signed it's pretty much a done deal.

Fraud tends to be able to be pursued civilly. (And if he sold Uber a bunch of IP that he didn't own, then that's textbook fraud)

This is a public comment, how else would you expect them to respond as a company? It doesn't mean Levandowski is actually being thrown under the bus.

Maybe because Uber wasn't actually in on it?

There will soon by a trial where we'll get to find out.

The biggest problem with their defense is that they have for so long been so loud and obnoxious about flaunting laws. It's easy to believe Google's claims.

I am thinking,this is going to get really really ugly as Levandowski wont go down without a fight.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it's pretty clear: if you're at Uber and you did something potentially unsavory, and are not well-connected you may indeed be walking around with a target on your back.

Not sure I could stomach that for too long.

> why wouldn't Levandowski now walk into the justice department

Has Trump not gotten around to firing the US attorneys who were investigating his boy Travis?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com