Category: Anthony Levandowski

Former engineer on Google’s self-driving car, then founder of Otto, maker of self-driving kits for big rig trucks, which Uber acquired in July 2016

Posted on

Refused to obtain California DMV permit for driverless testing

In December 2016, Uber began testing self-driving cars in California.  But it failed to obtain a $150 permit from the  California Department of Motor Vehicles — not a clerical error, but instead an affirmative decision not to obtain such a permit because, Uber leaders claimed, their vehicles did not require such a permit.  Thus Uber launched its self-driving pilot without notifying state regulators.

The Verge summarizes:

“In their minds, they really thought they weren’t autonomous,” Jessica Gonzalez, assistant deputy director of public affairs at the DMV, told The Verge. “But we decide what’s autonomous. And under our regulations, it was.”

The core of the disagreement was whether Uber’s vehicles constituted “autonomous vehicle” under California law.  Uber claimed that its cars required a human being in the driver’s seat, hence were not autonomous.  But California law defined autonomous based on technology (“any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person”, emphasis added), not just usage.

Contrary to Anthony Levandowski’s email to regulators that “We don’t do AV testing,” The Verge also reported evidence that the Uber vehicles were in fact used in autonomous mode.  For one, The Verge re ports its staff riding in the back seat of one of Uber’s self-driving SUVs in San Francisco prior to the public launch in December. The Verge also reports that its reporters sat behind the driver’s seat while the vehicle drove itself.  The Verge explains:

In both cases, the vehicle drove itself for long stretches of the trip, deftly handling intersections, bridges, and pedestrians without human intervention. There were times when a chime would sound, signaling the driver to take control. But other than that, the car was capable of operating “without the physical control or monitoring of a natural person,” as stipulated under the law.

The idea behind these public demonstrations was to prove that Uber’s self-driving vehicles were capable of handling dense urban environments, in anticipation of one day being capable of operating without a steering wheel, pedals, or even a human in the driver’s seat.

 

After the dispute became public, Uber removed its vehicles from California and began testing in Arizona instead.

Posted on

Otto was a sham to transfer employees and know-how from Google

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 228) indicates that the transition of Anthony Levandowski and other colleagues at Google’s self-driving program, from Google to Otto, was a sham designed to streamline their transition to Uber.  He explains that Levandowski created Otto “as if he were interested in pursuing his own trucking startup” (emphasis added).  Otto’s discussion with venture capitalists were, Isaac says, “mostly for appearance’s sake.”  Uber’s acquisition of Otto was, Isaac says, effectively preordained.

Posted on

Salle Yoo questioned Kalanick’s handling of Levandowski

In addition to insisting that Uber hire outside investigators to check what improper information Otto held, then-General Counsel Salle Yoo questioned other aspects of Kalanick’s handling of that acquisition. Business Insider explains that she said she wanted Uber to fire Levandowski long before the company did so, and also that she was excluded from critical discussions about Levandowski. Business Insider reports that these disagreements led to Yoo’s departure from Uber.

Posted on

Company leaders did not read report about confidential material held by Otto

Uber then-General Counsel Salle Yoo had insisted that Uber hire outside investigators to check for confidential information improperly held by Otto, before Uber acquired Otto. The resulting report revealed that Otto CEO Anthony Levandowski had copied Google information. But Uber leaders never saw the report because it was sent to outside counsel. Instead, they learned about the report only incidental to Google’s litigation against Uber alleging theft of Google secrets.

Posted on

Kalanick defended Otto founder Anthony Levandowski

Against the advice of then-General Counsel Salle Yoo and without support from then-Chief Business Officer Emil Michael, Uber then-CEO Travis Kalanick pushed forward with the acquisition of Otto, a startup for self-driving trucks.

Bloomberg reports multiple reasons why Kalanick could have been concerned about the deal and Levandowski’s tactics.

One, Otto consisted primarily of ex-Google staff, and Uber’s acquisition of Otto angered Google leaders, including co-founder Larry Page.

Two, before the deal closed, Uber’s investigators learned that Levandowski had possessed five disks of data from Google’s driverless effort including “source code, design files, laser files, engineering documents and software related to Google self-driving cars.” Uber’s investigators also knew that Levandowski’s claims to have destroyed the disks could not be verified. Kalanick said he did not read the investigators’ report.

Three, Levandowski asked Uber to protect him from legal attacks from Google, and Kalanick agreed to do so.

Even when Google sued Uber over the acquisition, and Levandowski invoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination to decline to cooperate with litigation, Kalanick continued to support Levandowski, claiming he would eventually be vindicated.

Bloomberg further reports Kalanick calling Levandowski his “brother from another mother.”

Business Insider adds that Kalanick had vouched for Levandowski. Meanwhile, Emil Michael, then Uber’s head dealmaker, did not support the acquisition because he thought the price was too high.

Posted on

Sought to conceal embarrassing court proceedings from the public

In Google’s lawsuit against Uber as to alleged theft of self-driving car technology, Uber sought to hold a hearing in camera, closed to the public. Judge Alsup concluded that Uber sought confidentiality not for any proper purpose permitted under law, but to avoid embarrassment. From the court transcript for March 26, 2017:

Mr. Gonzalez (for Uber): Your Honor, the reason why we wanted it in chambers is because of the adverse impact that we think it would have on our client. If there’s a headline tomorrow saying this guy is asserting the Fifth Amendment —

The Court: Listen, please don’t do this to me again. There’s going to be a lot of adverse headlines in this case on both sides. And I can’t stop that.

[T]he public has a right — in fact, this whole transcript, I’m going to make it public.

Details in The Verge

Waymo v. Uber litigation docket

Posted on

Then-General Counsel Salle Yoo “expressed reservations” about acquisition of Otto

In summer 2016, Uber then-CEO Travis Kalanick sought to acquire a startup called Otto which specialized in self-driving vehicles. According to Bloomberg, then-General Counsel Salle Yoo “expressed reservations about the deal” and insisted on hiring Stroz Friedberg (cyber investigators) to assess any impropriety including the possibility, already known to her and Kalanick, that Otto co-founder Anthony Levandowski was bringing files from Google, his former employer.

Bloomberg reports that Uber’s board wasn’t aware of these concerns, the Stroz findings, or Levandowski’s retention of Google files.

Proudly powered by WordPress