ShareThis Page
Business Headlines

Uber knew fired executive had info at center of Google theft case

| Thursday, June 22, 2017, 11:21 p.m.
Then-Uber CEO Travis Kalanick (left) and Anthony Levandowski, co-founder of Otto, pose for a photo in the lobby of Uber headquarters, in San Francisco.
Then-Uber CEO Travis Kalanick (left) and Anthony Levandowski, co-founder of Otto, pose for a photo in the lobby of Uber headquarters, in San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO — Uber acknowledged hiring a former Google engineer — now accused of stealing self-driving car technology — despite having received warnings that he was still carrying around some of his former employer's property.

The admission, contained in a Thursday court filing, is the latest twist in a high-profile legal fight between the ride-hailing company and a Google spin-off, Waymo. Both companies are battling to build self-driving cars that could reshape the way people travel.

Waymo alleges that Anthony Levandowski, the former Google engineer at the crux of the case, ripped off its trade secrets before departing in January 2016 to found a robotic vehicle startup that Uber acquired seven months later.

The lawsuit maintains that Uber then transplanted the intellectual property allegedly stolen by Levandowski into its own fleet of self-driving vehicles — a charge that Uber has adamantly denied since Waymo filed its complaint in federal court four months ago.

In May, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered Uber to return the stolen files, writing that evidence indicated the company “knew or should have known that he possessed over 14,000 confidential Waymo files.”

Now, Uber has for the first time has acknowledged that Levandowski informed its now-departed CEO, Travis Kalanick, that he had five disks filled with Google's information five months before joining Uber. The disclosure, made in March 2016, lends credence to Waymo's allegation that Levandowski downloaded 14,000 documents on to a computer before leaving Google.

Uber, though, says Kalanick told Levandowski not to bring any of the Google information with him to Uber. At that time, a deal had been reached for Uber to buy Levandowski's startup, Otto, for $680 million, though the acquisition wasn't completed until August 2016.

The filing asserts that Levandowski destroyed the disks containing Google's material not long after Kalanick told him that Uber didn't want the information on them.

Levandowski's lawyers didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. They have been advising Levandowski to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination since Waymo filed its lawsuit.

Based on the evidence he has seen so far, Alsup has already referred the case to the Justice Department for a potential criminal investigation.

The scenario sketched by Uber comes a few weeks after the company fired Levandowski for refusing to relinquish his Fifth Amendment rights and cooperate with its efforts to defend itself against Waymo's suit.

Kalanick resigned as Uber's CEO Tuesday week after investors demanded he step down. The investors who have financed Uber's growth had concluded Kalanick had to go following revelations of sexual harassment in the company's office, a federal investigation into company tactics used to thwart regulators, and the threat of even more trouble posed by the Waymo lawsuit.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me