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

[bhzmark]

I am not defending Mr. Anderson. I even agree that Tesla's allegations are pretty strong. All I am saying is that he should be given a chance in court to defend himself.

Nobody's taking that chance away from him. Although he is likely to settle before this gets to a trial. And he may not ever file an answer to the complaint giving his side of things before that settlement.

But meanwhile we are free to opine that his chances look grim, and he looks like a wrong doer and a contract breacher.
And he is free to publically give his side of the story in whatever format he wishes. So far the company statement is just the plain vanilla denial with zero specific facts.

It's funny how people have such widely varying standards on when to form opinions based on incomplete facts, and their assessment of when incomplete facts are nevertheless sufficient, or not, to support a strong conclusion.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

All of the above are irrelevant.

Criminal burden of proof = establishing the allegations of wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt. Does not apply to this lawsuit.

Civil burden of proof = establishing the allegations of wrongdoing on a balance of probabilities. In other words, more likely than not, or anything over 50%. You must just tip the scales of justice, but it doesn't matter by how much they are tipped. Applies to this lawsuit.

From reading the Civil Complaint it doesn't look good for Anderson but that's quite often the case so we can't jump to any conclusions... yet.

All of that is irrelevant, though, as well.

Since a couple of people brought up the presumption innocence (myself included), the context matters: The point was how this should be discussed on TMC. None of that above applies here either since this here is not even a civil suit. It is an online forum. Thus none of it was a literal, legal argument.

What applies here are the common principles and values we hold dear. Presumption of innocence, I would imagine, is pretty high on that scale. Not as legalistic, technical concept, but as basic decency.

Just a gentle reminder of those lauded values, is all.

Now, speculating and analysing the case and how it looks for Anderson, that is completely fair game of course.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It's funny how people have such widely varying standards on when to form opinions based on incomplete facts, and their assessment of when incomplete facts are nevertheless sufficient, or not, to support a strong conclusion.

Yes, we remember you not wanting to on the Countergate thread...

Jest aside, I doubt many have any problem with people forming and expressing opinions. The problem was the claim, by some, that they have facts while others have merely "alternative facts".

Let's face it, we hardly know any facts for sure on this case.

That said, let the analysis and speculation continue rife. That is useful in seeking the facts which we do not know yet.

 

[Canuck]

There was a statement put out, I believe, from the new company that is being formed. It was either posted somewhere on TMC or linked to. I will look for it, and either edit this post, or post it separately.

Edit: Found it.

--
Tesla is suing its ex-Autopilot director for allegedly poaching employees and stealing confidential information

Update: Urmson sent Recode this statement: “Tesla’s meritless lawsuit reveals both a startling paranoia and an unhealthy fear of competition. This abuse of the legal system is a malicious attempt to stifle a competitor and destroy personal reputations. Aurora looks forward to disproving these false allegations in court and to building a successful self-driving business.”
--

So while Anderson didn't make a statement personally saying that he asserts he didn't do these things, I think it is fair to say that the gist of that is at least implied by the above, if not explicitly stated.

I think you are reading too much into a short statement and to be fair we should wait for the Statement of Defence. I highly doubt Anderson will say none of the things Tesla alleges are true at all. That makes no sense to me. NDA's can be challenged successfully without doing that.

It is quite the statement. I wonder if it was vetted by a lawyer. "Startling paranoia" is the motivation, plus and "unhealthy fear" of competition? When the attack is personal rather than dealing with the allegations it makes me suspicious.

I note that after the quote above the article goes goes on to read:

"Tesla said it had no comment beyond what was included in the suit."

That's the correct approach, in my opinion. It is also my opinion that the response to the lawsuit should have been a strong dispute of any wrongdoing, and advising that the full particulars will be set out in a Statement of Defence since you do not intend to litigate this dispute in the press. Calling your opponent paranoid and a sick coward (which is how the lawyers will interpret "unhealthy fear") is not something I would have thought a lawyer would want his client to be subject to on cross-examination. Most judges frown on those types of things so Tesla is probably pleased with this statement.

What applies here are the common principles and values we hold dear. Presumption of innocence, I would imagine, is pretty high on that scale. Not as legalistic, technical concept, but as basic decency.

We will agree to disagree. In my opinion, the presumption of innocence:

1. Has no application at all in relation to civil law.

2. It applies only to the burden of proof in a criminal court. If my daughter comes home crying, bleeding and beaten with her clothes in shreds because she tells me she was raped, there is no "innocent until proven guilty" with me. Yes, the defendant is entitled to that presumption at law, but I would have no hesitation in giving him the death sentence -- without a trial -- if I knew I could get away with it. So telling me presuming him guilty in my mind is not "decent" makes absolutely no sense to me. It is a legal concept only to me -- a very important one at that -- but it ends there with me.

Could you really watch someone beat a helpless child or animal and presume them innocent until proven guilty in court? To me, that's indecent. This is a legal concept only for any decent person, in my view.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@Canuck Well, in all fairness, Tesla is a large corporation that got in their word first with the lawsuit - why would they have anything to add, their narrative is being parroted already. The other party is a small startup who was asked to respond quickly to a multi-page opening salvo... I for one did not read their response as an ad hominem kind of deflection at all.

But I get it, you are in Tesla's corner on this and great many things.

 

[Canuck]

@Canuck Well, in all fairness, Tesla is a large corporation that got in their word first with the lawsuit - why would they have anything to add, their narrative is being parroted already. The other party is a small startup who was asked to respond quickly to a multi-page opening salvo... I for one did not read their response as an ad hominem kind of deflection at all.

But I get it, you are in Tesla's corner on this and great many things.

That's funny, attack me with an ad hominem attack right after mentioning it.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@Canuck Sure, I think you may be a bit kind on Tesla much of the time. But my postscriptum was not my main point, though.

I was looking at this from the PR perspective and for me the idea you suggested that Tesla's no comment and the comment of Aurora would somehow be comparable situations does not seem to apply.

Tesla already had their legal narrrative in public, it was being quoted verbatim by the press. They had the edge of being first in public with it. For Aurora, a similar "no comment" would mean delaying response by days or weeks while they prepare their legal response.

I am also not convinced of your suggestion that a small start-up responding like a small start-up would either be an admission of guilt - or even seem that way to a judge.

Now, Andersson/Aurora certainly can be guilty. It is possible. But it is also a small startup vs. a large corporation.

 

[Canuck]

I was looking at this from the PR perspective and for me the idea you suggested that Tesla's no comment and the comment of Aurora would somehow be comparable situations does not seem to apply.

Tesla already had their legal narrrative in public, it was being quoted verbatim by the press. They had the edge of being first in public with it. For Aurora, a similar "no comment" would mean delaying response by days or weeks while they prepare their legal response.

I see it quite differently. I think it hurts their position to reply by saying Tesla has a "startling paranoia and an unhealthy fear of competition." That's classic deflection and doesn't deal with the issues at hand. It makes me suspect and despite what you say about me, I have criticized Tesla many times. I am only pulling for one thing in this lawsuit and it is not either party. It is that justice prevails. If Tesla did this employee wrong I hope they get what's coming to them and vice versa and I say this even though I hold TSLA. You can believe what you want about me but I am a moral and ethical person and I do not support Tesla over what is right and just. I never did and never will.

 

[3Victoria]

I support @Canuck 's opinion ... he is a lawyer, and I would certainly have to tip my hat to him when it comes to legal opinions. In addition, I have never seen him be anything but fair and rather unemotional in his responses to these things .. especially in regard to legal issues. I agree that the initial response from Aurora should have briefly addressed the allegations and said they would elaborate further to the courts. Urmson left Google in August, so there may be some action taken by Google, too.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I see it quite differently. I think it hurts their position to reply by saying Tesla has a "startling paranoia and an unhealthy fear of competition." That's classic deflection and doesn't deal with the issues at hand. It makes me suspect and despite what you say about me, I have criticized Tesla many times. I am only pulling for one thing in this lawsuit and it is not either party. It is that justice prevails. If Tesla did this employee wrong I hope they get what's coming to them and vice versa and I say this even though I hold TSLA. You can believe what you want about me but I am a moral and ethical person and I do not support Tesla over what is right and just. I never did and never will.

I certainly respect your opinion on the response. I am just not convinced it is quite fair, though. A small start-up does not have the same access to legal representation that a large company such as Tesla does - especially when it comes to such a quick first response. What you say might even be sound legal advice, but again they are a small start-up and they also have PR ramifications to consider, and simply the task of having to respond with likely limites means and people in place to respond at all.

I am against the suggestion, laced with your slight appeal to authority as a lawyer (others read it like that anyway, see @3Victoria), that the statement hyperbole is grounds to think Anderson/Aurora is looking guilty. It may well be just their opinion and a kneejerk comeback, after all, they wouldn't have all those layers of corporate cushioning to fall on.

Their guilt is a completely other thing. We shall see. But a potentially amateurish answer from amateurs (which any startup basically is) should not be read as anything more IMO.

 

[Krugerrand]

"Using Anderson's specialized knowledge of his colleagues'killsets and performance,

How an apostrophe in the wrong spot makes a WORLD of difference.

 

[3Victoria]

I am against the suggestion, laced with your slight appeal to authority as a lawyer (others read it like that anyway, see @3Victoria), that the statement hyperbole is grounds to think Anderson/Aurora is looking guilty. It may well be just their opinion and a kneejerk comeback, after all, they wouldn't have all those layers of corporate cushioning to fall on.

I, for one, did not suggest that this makes them look guilty. @Canuck 's point was that their statement may be viewed unfavourably by a judge, as it is gratuitously combative and does not advance the case. Even I, personally, would hire a lawyer and take their advice before responding to such allegations. I think we at least have to see both sides before we armchair the case

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I support @Canuck 's opinion ... he is a lawyer, and I would certainly have to tip my hat to him when it comes to legal opinions. In addition, I have never seen him be anything but fair and rather unemotional in his responses to these things .. especially in regard to legal issues. I agree that the initial response from Aurora should have briefly addressed the allegations and said they would elaborate further to the courts. Urmson left Google in August, so there may be some action taken by Google, too.

This was not about his legal advice. I have no comment on that, beyond the PR angle. It may well be sound legal advice.

This was about his suggestion that this type of statement makes them look guilty in general. I found that unfair and unrealistic, considering simply the fact that a small startup operation simply doesn't have that level of vetting available for such first statements.

Also the comparison of Tesla, as far larger player, having had the chance to put in their carefully prepared legal brief first into the public discourse... and that of a short kneejerk reaction statement a small startup that on the other hand had mere hours to make is also unfair.

The fact that so many people are taking Tesla's word for this simply because that is what is available (or perhaps that is who they are naturally more inclined to believe due to personal identification with the company) is the thing I'd like to see change a bit.

At the very least, we should keep an open mind until the other party has had time to file in their comprehensive response. I agree with your latter post @3Victoria, there.

 

[3Victoria]

The fact that so many people are taking Tesla's word for this simply because that is what is available (or perhaps that is who they are naturally more inclined to believe due to personal identification with the company) is the thing I'd like to see change a bit.

Well, this is a Tesla fan site, and so you have to expect that, on the whole, people will tend to side with Tesla. So, we can't expect perfection here. I am a Tesla fan, but willing to wait for "the other shoe to drop".

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Well, this is a Tesla fan site, and so you have to expect that, on the whole, people will tend to side with Tesla. So, we can't expect perfection here. I am a Tesla fan, but willing to wait for "the other shoe to drop".

Well, truth be told, TMC - which has gotten a lot better in recent times - is not the worst at all. Some of the comments on the blogs are just terrible in this case, much more so than here. But anyway, you hit the nail on the head, that expected behavior is the one I would like to check a little with these comments and since I feel better can be expected at TMC, I point this out. Maybe it opens a couple of minds at least to see how the other party properly responds, once they have time to do that.

That said, I am absolutely open to the possibility that Anderson/Aurora are in the wrong here. It is definitely possible. I have no disagreement with people analyzing/speculating on that, of course.

 

[3Victoria]

I have no disagreement with people analyzing/speculating on that, of course.

Well, I think I am going to be very disappointed, either in Anderson, who I admired, or in Tesla, no matter what the outcome.

 

[Canuck]

I am against the suggestion, laced with your slight appeal to authority as a lawyer (others read it like that anyway, see @3Victoria), that the statement hyperbole is grounds to think Anderson/Aurora is looking guilty. It may well be just their opinion and a kneejerk comeback, after all, they wouldn't have all those layers of corporate cushioning to fall on.

I ask that you please show me the respect of not putting words in my mouth. I never said "the statement hyperbole is grounds to think Anderson/Aurora is looking guilty" as you claim.

Nor did I say:

This was about his suggestion that this type of statement makes them look guilty in general.

Wrong! I said:

Calling your opponent paranoid and a sick coward (which is how the lawyers will interpret "unhealthy fear") is not something I would have thought a lawyer would want his client to be subject to on cross-examination. Most judges frown on those types of things so Tesla is probably pleased with this statement.

And:

I think it hurts their position to reply by saying Tesla has a "startling paranoia and an unhealthy fear of competition." That's classic deflection and doesn't deal with the issues at hand. It makes me suspect and despite what you say about me, I have criticized Tesla many times.

This is all I said about the statement and no where did I say it makes them look guilty. In fact, I made no comment at all about the merits of the case. I did say that the statement makes me "suspect". "Suspect" means: "doubt the genuineness or truth of". I stand by that. I doubt the genuineness or truth of Tesla having a "startling paranoia and an unhealthy fear of competition." You can believe it but I am suspect of it. Tesla, after all, opened up its patents to competitors if used in good faith. I am not aware of any other company doing that.

Also, the fact that I am a lawyer has nothing to do with our debate. I have no more information on this case than you do. To suggest that I:

laced with your slight appeal to authority as a lawyer

is another place where you are putting words in my mouth. Please show where I made any reference to the fact that I am a lawyer in my posts in this thread? You can't. @3Victoria knows this from other threads but not this one. I never laced anything in this thread with the fact that I am a lawyer. It is not relevant.

I show you the respect of quoting you properly. I ask that you please do the same.

 

[snellenr]

How an apostrophe in the wrong spot makes a WORLD of difference.

Well... THAT was certainly inadvertent (I stripped the line #s from the quote).

 

[Canuck]

Well, I think I am going to be very disappointed, either in Anderson, who I admired, or in Tesla, no matter what the outcome.

Maybe not.

If there's an out of court settlement, the terms of which are confidential, then you could avoid that disappointment.

 

[3Victoria]

Maybe not.

If there's an out of court settlement, the terms of which are confidential, then you could avoid that disappointment.

Yeah, I know. While not disappointed, left wondering, high and dry