So they paid him to investigate claims they argue are baseless? That doesn't make any sense.
There was no evidence of issues, yet they will still have a look to make sure of it.
That being said I doubt any of us honestly believe those words from Uber.
Those words just don't ring true no matter who they came from, and Uber's recent pay-off of a hacker who breached their customer data follows the exact same pattern.
Go back and read the article carefully, please. I'll repeat thisisit's pointed questions for you to address after you've gotten your head around the facts:
>I am sorry but do you mean companies should pay off a whistle-blower rather than say - >a. litigate, if the claims are baseless >b. In case the claim has substance to try and rectify the issue along with responsible disclosure?
After getting your head around all that, do you really think the guy who said "The fact that two qualified employees, a lawyer and a security constant, getting a similar sum should hint that it is common." sounds unbiased?
The payout is a different matter, that we both agree doesn't contribute to their defense.