Hacker News Reader

Comment by it_learnses | Hacker News Reader

Unless they promised to give him a large sum / stocks after everything is settled if he agrees not to talk.

In the USA legal system, this would be (at best) witness tampering and possibly obstruction of justice. Federal witness tampering and obstruction are things that _very_ few lawyers would knowingly participate in because you don't have to be successful to be convicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering

Uber: Hey, we're really sorry that things didn't work out but "here's some equity for the time that you worked here" oh and by the way here's the estimated value of that equity if we win the lawsuit or don't win the law suit.

Despite popular belief, the judiciary is in fact not a pack of nincompoops that can be trivially bypassed by a nudge and a wink...

Nor is the judiciary powerless against attempts to exploit loopholes, if they indeed exist.

"Muahahaha! The law is powerless against me and I can violate it with impunity by judicious word choice" is largely a fantasy.

Unlike a compiler that you can trick, the law operates on the intended spirit in addition to the letter of the statute and relevant precedent.

This "law hack" would be immediately caught by Waymo and Judge Alsop would rightfully penalize Uber. The corporate officers who signed off on an action like that would likely be criminally liable as well.

I'm not advocating for Uber to do what I said but given what's been written about their ethical practices, it's what I would expect from them.

The problem is, how do you differentiate between equity whose grant is meant to manipulate a party of a crime and equity justly earned by working there?

If I were Uber, I would fire him and if possible, revoke any equity he had to absolve the company from any accusations of implied manipulation.

You're replying to a comment that mentioned witness tampering, and your proposed solution is more witness tampering? You know those non-technical people who think themselves clever by suggesting "all they need to do is make the computer understand human speech, then..."? Yeah, that's what this thread probably sounds like to a lawyer or judge.

Would be tricky to pull off without a serious charge of "impeding justice".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com