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

[Xenoilphobe]

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

I think what he means is that no matter what happens reputations are damaged. Even if the allegations are false.

 

[callmesam]

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.

The documents provide the basis for a duty. That was then (allegedly) breached. Without the documents, the entire allegation falls apart. So, yes, naming the documents is ESSENTIAL to the claim.

Not sure what you are arguing here. The evidence presented, including the documents signed by Anderson, the recruiting plans are the basis for the breach.

"Trial by TMC" is a straw man. I am evaluating the evidence presented. Please review my posts. Each one has supposed that quoted material, IF TRUE, is damning evidence of wrongdoing. I also noted that quoted material in a lawsuit should be the focus of any review, not allegations by themselves.

1. Named documents that subborn Tesla's contract are significant and important.
2. Documents that Anderson signed are significant (along with common law duties)
3. Specific allegations of document destruction are legally significant.

As a practical matter, quotations in lawsuits means you have specific evidence (which can/will be revealed later) beyond ALLEGATIONS of wrongdoing. Those include documents (likely) backed up by Tesla from Anderson’s devices as well as declarations from current employees that they were solicited.

You may choose to believe that all the information in the complaint is equally probative, but there is data available to those who know how to interpret a complaint, that outlines the strong argument by Tesla.

 

[Andyw2100]

I think what he means is that no matter what happens reputations are damaged. Even if the allegations are false.

Well, he also disagreed with this post--

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

...so I'm really not sure that that is what he meant. I also don't really care.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Andy,
I get it - I feel sorry for the guy (the accused), like Bonnie said you never know what the real agenda is - disgruntled employee, subordinate that wants your job, guy wants to leave and is due a payout, but company doesn't want to give it, board member with strategy that doesn't align, etc...

I disagree with posts all the time, I wouldn't take it personal, I enjoy your posts - this is just a car forum - as they say everyone has opinions and ......

 

[Andyw2100]

Andy,
I get it - I feel sorry for the guy (the accused), like Bonnie said you never know what the real agenda is - disgruntled employee, subordinate that wants your job, guy wants to leave and is due a payout, but company doesn't want to give it, board member with strategy that doesn't align, etc...

I disagree with posts all the time, I wouldn't take it personal, I enjoy your posts - this is just a car forum - as they say everyone has opinions and ......

Thanks, @Xenoilphobe. I appreciate the support.

I think people here just use the "disagree" button differently. I've actually given out 0 dislikes/disagrees. When I disagree with a post, assuming I feel strongly enough about it to do anything, what I do is explain why I disagree or dislike it in a post of my own. But I guess I can understand that others, including you--a poster I DO respect--feel and act differently.

So thanks again!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

My only wish is that Eds would have gotten as much kind consideration.

That said, I agree completely there are only allegations against Anderson. The facts are unknown to us at this time.

In fact, I distinctly remember a certain presumption of... that matters.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Tesla has a multitude of conflicting interests - they are not an objective seeker of truth in a lawsuit that concerns their interests, nobody can be. That's why we need the courts.

For all we know, Tesla may be wrong or driven more by interests to protect their essential Autopilot team from poaching (discourage joining the new company) than by any ironclad evidence of wrongdoing.

Who knows, it may also be that Anderson is guilty as alleged. But we do not know that.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Thanks, @Xenoilphobe. I appreciate the support.

I think people here just use the "disagree" button differently. I've actually given out 0 dislikes/disagrees. When I disagree with a post, assuming I feel strongly enough about it to do anything, what I do is explain why I disagree or dislike it in a post of my own. But I guess I can understand that others, including you--a poster I DO respect--feel and act differently.

So thanks again!

It's all about perspective - I like to understand the other persons view, even if I don't always agree - and thank you for the compliment - Any time - you are welcome Andy!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

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

Indeed there is.

It seems hard for some to admit.

That said, it would so much easier if people just argued their respective interpretations, speculations and likehoods/estimations.

There is certainly meaningful discussion and analysis that could be had, once we got over falsely trying to paint unkowns as known facts.

But then in my experience people hate analysis and speculation, and would much prefer to jump to conclusions instead...

 

[Krugerrand]

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.

Not if the 3 employees (2 in fact left, 1 remained) in question testify that they were recruited.

 

[Electroman]

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.

In the strict court of law, i am sure there are a lot of loop holes one can escape hiding under the cover of legality. OJ did it.

But then it is unethical if (assuming he did) Anderson hired knowingly or unknowingly a Tesla employee on the AP team. He should have strict instructions to his recruiters that Tesla employees are not to be approached. This rule is followed by many contracting agencies, where a they cannot poach contractors from a different agency to work for the same client. This is no different from that, in a pool of talent that is very small.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Indeed there is.

It seems hard for some to admit.

That said, it would so much easier if people just argued their respective interpretations, speculations and likehoods/estimations.

There is certainly meaningful discussion and analysis that could be had, once we got over falsely trying to paint unkowns as known facts.

But then in my experience people hate analysis and speculation, and would much prefer to jump to conclusions instead...

Very Very True - I have taught my kids to always ask Cui Bono? Who benefits? -financially - then you will understand motive.

 

[3Victoria]

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

I think he meant that whatever the outcome one of the parties' reputations will be damaged (unless there is a non-published settlement).

Also, being found "not guilty" does not mean one is innocent, only that the prosecution failed to make their case.

Obviously this case will be settled by other than us. The detail in the court document does make it appear that Tesla has a good case, but they may be reaching.

 

[snellenr]

Tesla alleges that the employee recruitment was a two-way effort (¶ 19) -- if Google/Alphabet wasn't aware of what was happening until now, their reaction to this suit may prove interesting...

"Using Anderson's specialized knowledge of his colleagues'killsets and performance, Urmson set out to pursue engineers identified by Anderson at Tesla, and Anderson began pursuing engineers identified by Urmson at Google."

 

[teslasuperfan]

Reminder to all, we live in a country with a judicial system that assumes a defendant to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

[bhzmark]

Reminder to all, we live in a country with a judicial system that assumes a defendant to be innocent until proven guilty.

We also live in a country with a judicial system that distinguishes between criminal liability and civil liability.

This, so far, is only about civil liability claims where the presumption of innocence is not applicable.

A person can promise to their employer to not directly OR INDIRECTLY solicit employees from their employer. They can violate the latter part of that promise by arranging for someone else to solicit those employees. That is what is alleged here, and, if proven, seems like a pretty clear breach of that promise.

 

[Andyw2100]

A person can promise to their employer to not directly OR INDIRECTLY solicit employees from their employer. They can violate the latter part of that promise by arranging for someone else to solicit those employees. That is what is alleged here, and, if proven, seems like a pretty clear breach of that promise.

If proven.

I think the "innocent until proven guilty" arguments, though not strictly applicable since this isn't a criminal case, are all simply pointing out that nothing has been proven yet.

 

[teslasuperfan]

We also live in a country with a judicial system that distinguishes between criminal liability and civil liability.

This, so far, is only about civil liability claims where the presumption of innocence is not applicable.

A person can promise to their employer to not directly OR INDIRECTLY solicit employees from their employer. They can violate the latter part of that promise by arranging for someone else to solicit those employees. That is what is alleged here, and, if proven, seems like a pretty clear breach of that promise.

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.

 

[Canuck]

There are no "facts", yet. Tesla asserts Anderson did some things. Anderson asserts he didn't.

How do you know Anderson asserts he didn't do some things? The Civil Complaint was only recently filed. I doubt a Statement of Defence (or whatever it is called in California) has been filed yet but if one has, I would appreciate being provided with the link so we can read his defence.

I doubt Tesla would plead such specific facts without being able to prove at least some of the allegation with evidence in support. Anderson may admit some but allege the NDA was too broad in scope, was breached first by Tesla, or many other defences, other than "asserting he didn't" do all of the things alleged by Tesla.

For someone who tells people not to jump to conclusions, you might want to take your own advice... (I say that tongue-in-cheek since I know you meant well).

Once I have sufficient facts to be an arm chair juror, I may post my opinion despite people here not wanting to hear opinions. I'll never get the full and proper facts, unless I sit in a juror's chair during the trial, but that's never stopped me from posting my opinion on lawsuits. After all, it's only my opinion. I can't impose judgment so there's no harm done. But I agree we should try to be fair to both sides in posting opinions on public forums since I would not want someone to judge me without at least hearing my side first. Hopefully we can get access to Anderson's Statement of Defence.

In the strict court of law, i am sure there are a lot of loop holes one can escape hiding under the cover of legality. OJ did it.

Also, being found "not guilty" does not mean one is innocent, only that the prosecution failed to make their case.

Reminder to all, we live in a country with a judicial system that assumes a defendant to be innocent until proven guilty.

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.

 

[Andyw2100]

How do you know Anderson asserts he didn't do some things? The Civil Complaint was only recently filed. I doubt a Statement of Defence (or whatever it is called in California) has been filed yet but if one has, I would appreciate being provided with the link so we can read his defence.

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.