|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Jigglr at that point might as well recruit strippers.
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:51
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Some lovely pay-to-win app factory. Software Development was a mistake
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
blowfish posted:at that point might as well recruit strippers. That seems like more of a Wall Street stockbroker move
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
I'm surprised no one's tried to disrupt the vice industry.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Friend of mine got told in a job interview that the tech office coordinator role she was applying for needed to function as a "mom slash girlfriend" to "support the guys" and be "an emotional fluffer" and then the interviewer asked her if she knew what that term meant. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm surprised no one's tried to disrupt the vice industry. What do you think backpage was?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:That seems like more of a Wall Street stockbroker move Wasn't hiring strippers yet another Uber story?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
blowfish posted:at that point might as well recruit strippers. Too expensive, they want house moms like their frat had.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Wasn't hiring strippers yet another Uber story? I thought it was business lunches at a SoMa strip club?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
withak posted:I thought it was business lunches at a SoMa strip club? Por qué no las dos? e: Strippers aren't the same as prostitutes. My bad. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 15:49 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I'm surprised nobody has tried to disrupt the breasteraunt business. Disrupting a breasteraunt is just motorboating a waitress and being thrown out. Also, Tilted Kilt just makes me think of a restaurant with surly Scottish waiters.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Disrupting a breasteraunt is just motorboating a waitress and being thrown out. Is that not what it is?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I would love to know what company this is. Holy poo poo. I would love to know how her lawsuit us going.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Is that not what it is? no, its women in halfshirts with no boob coverage wearing tartan skirts that show their underwear if they lean even a little bit serving lovely sysco food.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
There is a Twin Peaks like 5 miles from my house.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:There is a Twin Peaks like 5 miles from my house. What did your log see.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:I would love to know how her lawsuit us going. No proof, no money for a lawyer = no rights.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
The Google v Uber lawsuit hearings are happening now.  Google just accused Uber of creating a fake, shell company with its former engineer to steal its tech quote:Here's what Waymo said that it's discovered so far: Bolding mine.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Yeah, if even part of the stuff Google is alleging can be proved, Uber looks to be in deep poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
So, this isn't like some normal corporate employee poaching, its straight up industrial espionage with fake companies being created, secret stock transfers, massive amounts of information copied and stolen, and then a concerted effort to cover it all up and destroy the evidence? Isn't this an actual crime, like federal prison jail time?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
pentyne posted:So, this isn't like some normal corporate employee poaching, its straight up industrial espionage with fake companies being created, secret stock transfers, massive amounts of information copied and stolen, and then a concerted effort to cover it all up and destroy the evidence? Correct. Based on what was posted, it appears that Uber and Levandowski conspired for him to leave Google/Waymo and immediately start a new company, which opens up a ton of questions in terms of theft of trade secrets. The $250MM award isn't evidence of guilt in and of itself, but along with an e-mail stating that both his deliverables were high as was his asking price, it begs the question of what he told Uber he could deliver, and how and when it was developed. There are a couple possible scenarios here:
He developed a product while employed at Google/Waymo, and took that to Otto/Uber. He developed a product the day after leaving Google. The first option is flat out theft, and it is what Google is alleging - that he copied data from Google and took it with him. The second option is a gray area, and I'm not a lawyer so someone with more expertise may be able to shed more light on it, BUT - Levandowski was primarily employed by Waymo to develop and build a self driving car, which includes any technology that goes into it. If he developed his own solution on company time (even if outside of work hours), it could be argued that Google still owns the rights to it. More to the point, it looks really bad for him and for Uber if he was in fact negotiating with them to deliver a product or technology while still employed at Google/Waymo, especially if any feature/functions existed in the Google solution and weren't otherwise in widespread use. Frankly, even if it's a legal gray area, Google still has a very strong case here. It's just a matter of what can be proven. The third option from that list is...unlikely. As for possible punishment, I have no idea what the guidelines are beyond to say that yes, depending on what happens, federal prison time is a possibility.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
A lot of it depends on how much Uber executives knew and when they knew it. I don't think there's much dispute that he stole trade secrets and that those helped Otto build out their tech. They weren't exactly subtle about it. But if Levandowski promised Uber something he couldn't really deliver and then stole a bunch of poo poo behind their back to make it work, that's different from them explicitly poaching him to get at Google's self-driving car tech. Uber's probably hosed either way, but it gets a lot worse for them if the court decides this was deliberate corporate espionage.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
So, is there any sort of injunction preventing them from using the (allegedly) stolen tech?
Volcott fucked around with this message at 00:58 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Volcott posted:So, is there any sort of injunction preventing them from using the (allegedly) stolen tech? If not it's pretty much going to be a given.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Volcott posted:So, is there any sort of injunction preventing them from using the (allegedly) stolen tech? Well none of it really works yet, so that's preventing them from using it. Along with how their engineers (according to rumors) keep quitting after a few months. That can't be good for actually developing anything.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Along with how their engineers (according to rumors) keep quitting after a few months. That can't be good for actually developing anything.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Volcott posted:So, is there any sort of injunction preventing them from using the (allegedly) stolen tech? https://www.wired.com/2017/05/judge-waymo-dispute-lets-ubers-self-driving-program-live-now/ quote:IN A PACKED courtroom in San Francisco on Wednesday, all parties involved seemed to be in agreement. Google lawyers alleged that the company’s former engineer and current Uber employee Anthony Levandowski stole 14,000 confidential documents off a computer owned by Waymo, Google’s self-driving spinoff. Lawyers for Uber repeatedly failed to dispute this portion of the presented facts while defending themselves against a gargantuan Waymo suit. And the judge seemed convinced. “You have one of the strongest records I’ve seen for a long time of anybody doing something that bad,” Judge William Alsup told Waymo lawyer Charles Verhoven, who works for the law firm Quinn Emanuel. “Good for you.” Sounds like this is going to drag on and on and even though the judge heavily favors Waymo's case, he's not going to do anything until they find a "Let's rob Google's tech kekekeke" email
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
I know this isn't how the law works etc. but for me if Lewandowski doesn't do at least a short stretch in prison for that it seems like why have the law. A fine's not going to mean much and judges can and sometimes do work that way. Agree that how it will impact Uber is more up in the air but Uber is probably just circling the drain until the Saudi money runs out regardless. Seems like Theranos is going to stop circling the drain pretty soon. They settled with a hedge fund investor and probably the only questions left are 1) how much of their remaining cash is going to people suing them/lawyers vs. current employees and 2) who is going to poach the misshapen horn off the unicorpse.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I know this isn't how the law works etc. but for me if Lewandowski doesn't do at least a short stretch in prison for that it seems like why have the law.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:This is a civil suit. You don't go to jail for losing a civil suit; you might lose a later criminal trial if the evidence from the civil suit is relevant. IDK if this suit, if lost, can lead to a criminal trial, but because this is a civil suit, Lewandowski can't be sentenced to anything except losing a lot of money. This distinction is important, because its why OJ Simpson got to walk around a free but completely bankrupt man.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
For a country with such a strong capitalist tradition, you'd think the US would be more aggressive in putting the boots to white collar criminals.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:This is a civil suit. You don't go to jail for losing a civil suit; you might lose a later criminal trial if the evidence from the civil suit is relevant. IDK if this suit, if lost, can lead to a criminal trial, but because this is a civil suit, Lewandowski can't be sentenced to anything except losing a lot of money. While normally you really shouldn't presume that someone pleading the fifth did something criminal, given what is known about this case I think Levandowski is very likely assuming criminal charges are incoming at some point.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Volcott posted:For a country with such a strong capitalist tradition, you'd think the US would be more aggressive in putting the boots to white collar criminals.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Feinne posted:While normally you really shouldn't presume that someone pleading the fifth did something criminal, given what is known about this case I think Levandowski is very likely assuming criminal charges are incoming at some point. Again: yes you can. This is a civil case. You can infer against someone pleading the fifth in a private lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Not when said capitalists write our laws Yeah, but it's the capitalists that suffer when there's not a level playing field.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:The second option is a gray area, and I'm not a lawyer so someone with more expertise may be able to shed more light on it, BUT - Levandowski was primarily employed by Waymo to develop and build a self driving car, which includes any technology that goes into it. If he developed his own solution on company time (even if outside of work hours), it could be argued that Google still owns the rights to it. More to the point, it looks really bad for him and for Uber if he was in fact negotiating with them to deliver a product or technology while still employed at Google/Waymo, especially if any feature/functions existed in the Google solution and weren't otherwise in widespread use. Frankly, even if it's a legal gray area, Google still has a very strong case here. It's just a matter of what can be proven. I would be shocked clean out of my socks if a key man like Levandowski had a statement that said anything other than "We own your body and soul, that's why we're paying you the big bucks/stock options."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Jigglr Name and shame. Whoa.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Every software/hardware company I have ever worked for has had you sign a statement when you joined defining which things you create, on your own time or otherwise, belong to the company. I've seen everything from "everything creative you do belongs to us, even if it has nothing to do with the computer industry" -- I literally couldn't get HP to sign a statement that this didn't apply to publishing fiction -- to "everything you do belongs to us, unless you get permission first". I have never, ever seen "If it's in your free time, go wild!" Don't worry turns out the contract isn't binding due to a technicality.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Every software/hardware company I have ever worked for has had you sign a statement when you joined defining which things you create, on your own time or otherwise, belong to the company. I've seen everything from "everything creative you do belongs to us, even if it has nothing to do with the computer industry" -- I literally couldn't get HP to sign a statement that this didn't apply to publishing fiction -- to "everything you do belongs to us, unless you get permission first". I have never, ever seen "If it's in your free time, go wild!" It is a near certainty that he had to sign something to that effect, but I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere yet. Completely agree though, I would be surprised if he didn't sign that type of contract.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Every software/hardware company I have ever worked for has had you sign a statement when you joined defining which things you create, on your own time or otherwise, belong to the company. I've seen everything from "everything creative you do belongs to us, even if it has nothing to do with the computer industry" -- I literally couldn't get HP to sign a statement that this didn't apply to publishing fiction -- to "everything you do belongs to us, unless you get permission first". I have never, ever seen "If it's in your free time, go wild!" It's very infrequently enforced. There's a ton of very successful startups out there, spawned from some of the bigger names in tech, that literally rebuilt some internal tool they developed at their prior company as their new startup's product. Anti-poaching clauses are the same -- they sound draconian in practice, but end up getting routinely ignored with no consequences.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:54
|
|
