Autopilot and other Tesla info from Tesla's lawsuit against former employee

[bhzmark]

The charge of taking data is the more serious one. Recruiting employees can be difficult to prove. I'm not a lawyer but if I understand it correctly:

1) illegal - Still employed you say "Hey Bob, I'm going to start a company and want you to be part of it."
2) legal - You leave. Bob calls and asks what you are doing. You tell him and he asks to be part.
3) legal - you are leaving to form a company. An investor knows Bob and recruits him. The key here is that the investor knew Bob without you telling the investor to recruit Bob.
4) legal - you work with an ex employee to form a new company. That employee is past the non compete term (2years?) and recruits Bob before you even leave.

The lawyers can chime in if this is correct. I'll reserve judgement till I know more.

The employee solicitation issue is not a matter of illegal or legal; that is it's not a criminal law matter. It is a breach of contract issue. The employment contract governing their relationship is made up of promises by both sides. Neither side had to agree to any those promises but in fact they did. those promises can continue after the employment relationship also. in this case the non-solicitation promise continues for one year after his employment termination. His breach of that promise not to solicit other employees, directly or indirectly, is what is alleged in this complaint. The entire complaint is short and easy reading.

 

[SR22pilot]

Obviously I'm not a lawyer. My point was that it can be trickier to prove than at first glance. Who initiates the discussion can be key.

 

[182RG]

There were other serious allegations like him copying a couple hundred GB of data before leaving, which should also be relatively straightforward to prove.

Depending on how tight their IT controls are, it may or may not be straightforward. Where the couple hundred GB was stored, and if access and copy activity was logged will be at issue. It actually may be impossible to prove.

 

[JHuberman]

So how much will this delay the continued improvement of our autopilot system? Is the team going to be focused on who is going to be in trouble or refining the code?

 

[Chris Fox]

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems the guy signed a non-solicitation agreement when he was hired. It should be relatively straightforward to prove that he was doing solicitation of Tesla employees after he left if he really was doing that. There were other serious allegations like him copying a couple hundred GB of data before leaving, which should also be relatively straightforward to prove.

In addition, the lawsuit requests access to Aurora's software. Would take a tesla technician less than 60seconds to find any stolen code. My guess is it's all stolen.

I'm sure at this very moment, the Aurora team is wiping their systems clean from all software/design related material. They'll probably bury it for a year while secretly trying to sell the tech to China

 

[Chris Fox]

Depending on how tight their IT controls are, it may or may not be straightforward. Where the couple hundred GB was stored, and if access and copy activity was logged will be at issue. It actually may be impossible to prove.

The lawsuit is requesting access to Aurora's code. Code is unique. Like a story. All a programmer would need to do is copy a random line of code from Tesla's software, open Aurora's code and <Find> the copied code.

If anything is found, code was stolen. If not, code is original and Aurora isnt using it.

 

[Driver Dave]

Seeing the slight delay in AP2 software was I would say the guy in charge was either incompetent or deliberately slowing things down.

Regardless, spending your time starting a new directly competitive company during a crucial time in your job that you are getting paid a lot of money to perform, aka leading the team to make AP2 work, is a fairly "jerky" thing to do.

I would hope Tesla would claw back wages paid while this guy was moonlighting on the stock holders of Tesla.

Especially when it is pretty obvious what was going on. These guys saw big money getting thrown around to buy half baked autonomous driving companies and they wanted in on the party, all while continuing to cash Tesla payroll checks.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Alternative Facts - it feels like a________

 

[callmesam]

There are very specific quotations in the lawsuit. That is usually indicative of transcription and is also evidence that Tesla has the laptop and iPhome backed up before any erasures.

Bad news for someone who might be using company assets for a new venture.

On January 4, 2017, Anderson took his Tesla laptop to Urmson's home, accessed a document entitled "Recruiting targets" and continued to proceed with their Tesla solicitations.

Anderson's obligations are memorialized in an offer letter dated November 11, 2014 (the "Offer Letter"), an Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement dated December 2, 2014 (the "EPIIA"),and a letter agreement that Anderson S igned electronically on November 3, 2016 (the "Confidentiality Letter Agreement" ).

Anderson worked with Urmson on documents with titles such as "Aurora Innovation Staffing Plan" and "Recruiting targets," the latter of which he accessed from Urmson's home on Tesla's time and using Tesla-issued laptop.

He wiped his company-issued iPhone, purging not only Tesla-related materials that he was required to return upon the end of his employment but also text messages and phone records evidencing his unlawful solicitation of Tesla employees. He erased files from his company-issued laptop in a manner intended to prevent them from being restored and manipulated the timestamps on other files in an apparent effort to obscure the dates on which they had last been modified or accessed.

Not making a CONCLUSION of liability, but the evidence presented, the specificity and the allegations together with the DUTIES owed Tesla, suggest Anderson is in serious trouble.

 

[Andyw2100]

Not making a CONCLUSION of liability, but the evidence presented, the specificity and the allegations together with the DUTIES owed Tesla, suggest Anderson is in serious trouble.

IF the allegations are true. There has been no evidence provided yet--only allegations. There IS a difference.

 

[SageBrush]

The charge of taking data is the more serious one. Recruiting employees can be difficult to prove. I'm not a lawyer but if I understand it correctly:

1) illegal - Still employed you say "Hey Bob, I'm going to start a company and want you to be part of it."
2) legal - You leave. Bob calls and asks what you are doing. You tell him and he asks to be part.
3) legal - you are leaving to form a company. An investor knows Bob and recruits him. The key here is that the investor knew Bob without you telling the investor to recruit Bob.
4) legal - you work with an ex employee to form a new company. That employee is past the non compete term (2years?) and recruits Bob before you even leave.

The lawyers can chime in if this is correct. I'll reserve judgement till I know more.

3a) Investor (co-founder) is having dinner with recently Tesla departed co-owner Anderson and they chat about Tesla employees Anderson really enjoyed working with and respects. Then investor goes out and snags those employees for new company. Legal ?

 

[Driver Dave]

Alternative Facts - it feels like a________

View attachment 212444

Alternative facts is more like

IF the allegations are true. There has been no evidence provided yet--only allegations. There IS a difference.

When a billion dollars is the pay out, the allegations make more sense than "it was all just a big misunderstanding"

 

[Andyw2100]

Alternative facts is more like

Referring to my statement which factually and objectively states the principles of law as "alternative facts" is both insulting and blatantly wrong. One can only hope that the judge and jury on this case is made up of people a heck of a lot smarter than you.

 

[bonnie]

Alternative facts is more like


When a billion dollars is the pay out, the allegations make more sense than "it was all just a big misunderstanding"

I would suspect it is more about the engineers who might choose to follow. The engineering team is a huge asset. Anderson was well-respected. How do you stop the bleed?

 

[Andyw2100]

People who disagree with factual posts are cowards.

 

[callmesam]

IF the allegations are true. There has been no evidence provided yet--only allegations. There IS a difference.

Once you've been involved in a few of these rodeos, you'll understand why quotations matter. There HAS been evidence provided:

1. Names of documents Anderson drafted or discussed,

2. Documents where Anderson has an affirmative duty to obey,

3. Documents and files that have been deleted.

Whether Anderson is legally liable has not been decided and nothing I've written supposes this is the case. But having experienced these cases, first hand, the evidence presented (if true) is as damaging and definitive as one can get.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Referring to my statement which factually and objectively states the principles of law as "alternative facts" is both insulting and blatantly wrong. One can only hope that the judge and jury on this case is made up of people a heck of a lot smarter than you.

You have high expectations of a jury -based on my experience it will be far worse - 12 Angry Men is a movie - the truth is most sharp people get bumped off during "Voir Dire" if his attorneys are doing their job.

The object of voir dire, from each side's perspective, is not to get a fair jury, but rather a prejudiced one--one prejudiced in their favor. .

A typical jury could look like this one - The O. J. Simpson Trial: The Jury

 

[bonnie]

Once you've been involved in a few of these rodeos, you'll understand why quotations matter. There HAS been evidence provided:

1. Names of documents Anderson drafted or discussed,

2. Documents where Anderson has an affirmative duty to obey,

3. Documents and files that have been deleted.

Whether Anderson is legally liable has not been decided and nothing I've written supposes this is the case. But having experienced these cases, first hand, the evidence presented (if true) is as damaging and definitive as one can get.

I've been involved in more than a few of these rodeos. Not as an attorney, but deposed numerous times, testified about half as many times, etc. I've sat in the meetings where we've decided what to do about someone who has appeared to have stolen IP. I know how often wrong conclusions can be drawn from what first appears to be rock-solid facts.

And I agree with Andy - so far there are allegations. #1 and #3 are allegations. Violation of #2 is what needs to be proven. Existence of employment docs doesn't mean he violated anything, only that those docs exist.

But like I said before, 'trial by TMC' is a popular activity. So I have no illusions that I can expect a little sanity here, even when someone's reputation is so very publicly at stake. There will be plenty of time to trash him if he did steal IP. But having names of documents, etc., doesn't prove anything.

 

[Topher]

IF the allegations are true. There has been no evidence provided yet--only allegations. There IS a difference.

No, the trouble is serious even if the allegations aren't true. You don't need to be guilty to lose a lawsuit.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Andyw2100]

No, the trouble is serious even if the allegations aren't true.

Is this some kind of a riddle? I don't understand the joke. I know it can't be a serious comment.