Mediaboss Marketing

Waymo, the self-driving vehicle business spun out of Googles parent company a year ago, asked a federal court on March 10, 2017 to block Ubers work on a competing self-driving truck that Waymo claimed could be using stolen technology.

Google's Waymo accused Uber of stealing documents that described critical self-driving auto technology, with former top Waymo engineer Anthony Levandowski being at the center of the case. Uber's lawyers argue that the company does not have the documents Levandowski is accused of stealing from Waymo, therefore it can not hand them over in the scheduled document production. He did so to avoid turning over documents in the Waymo v. Uber trade-secret litigation.

Speaking to The New York Times, the lawyers for Anthony Levandowski say that he will exercise his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination due to the potential of criminal action in the case.

Anthony Levandowski, the head of Uber's self-driving auto project, took the extraordinary step during a closed court hearing on Wednesday.

The case is expected to be a high-profile fight that pits two of the biggest companies involved in trying to put autonomous cars on the road-unless Uber succeeds in moving things out of the public eye and in to arbitration.

Uber has asked the court to stay Waymo's trade secret and unfair competition claims if it decides they have to be settled by arbitration, but should let the remaining claims such as the patent infringement charges proceed in the court.

For the time being, Levandowski's lawyers said that they're "broadly asserting" his Fifth Amendment rights to "any documents he may possess and control" that are relevant.

The Times cites court transcripts from a Thursday hearing, which include Levandowski's lawyers invoking the amendment in what appears to be a precaution related to document release.

Waymo accuses Levandowski of downloading "over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo's various hardware systems" roughly six weeks prior to resigning from the company. But what's unusual is that it's only seeking to move the trade secrets and unfair competition claims, both of which it claims are meritless. The company last week filed a motion to request that the disputes around trade secrets be resolved in private arbitration instead of a public court.

The said arbitration process accused him of leaving the company with a full load of confidential information, which was later used to poach other employees from Waymo.

The allegations Waymo made against Levandowski and Uber in the lawsuit remain unproven.

"You don't get many cases where there is pretty direct proof that somebody downloaded 14,000 documents, and then left the next day", Alsup said at a March 16 hearing.

"There's going to be a lot of adverse headlines in this case on both sides", Judge Alsup said.

"We look forward to our first public response laying out our case on Friday, 7 April", Angela Padilla, Uber's associate general counsel, said in a statement.

Read this article:
Uber's Anthony Levandowsky invokes Fifth Amendment rights - AppsforPCdaily

File this under things that are too strange to be fiction. Nobody could make this stuff up! Anthony Levandowski used to work for Waymo, the self driving division of Alphabet, which most of us know as Google. In early 2016, he left Waymo and started his own business called Otto that specialized in creating self driving systems for large trucks. Last year, Uber bought Otto for $500 million. (One presumes that Otto is a play on the word auto, no doubt suggested by a certain famous scene in the movie Airplane!)

It took Waymo 7 years to develop its self driving car technology. Uber is now testing self driving technology that it developed in 7 months. Prior to leaving Waymo, Levandowski downloaded over 14,000proprietary and confidential files from the Waymo server, including the design for a Lidar circuit board. Waymo knew nothing about any of this until a supplier working with Otto accidentally included Waymo in an e-mail.

Once alerted, Waymo filed suit asking for an injunction against Uber using any of the information it obtained from Levandowski via its acquisition of Otto. The complaint alleges,Fair competition spurs new technical innovation, but what has happened here is not fair competition. Instead, Otto and Uber have taken Waymos intellectual property so that they could avoid incurring the risk, time, and expense of independently developing their own technology.

These are very serious allegations, if true, said Tyler Ochoa, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. The trade secret case by itself is a blockbuster. Its hard to believe theyd put those accusations into print unless they had evidence, Ochoatold Bloomberg.

This week, Levandowskis attorney, Miles Ehrlich, informedU.S. District Court Judge William Alsup that his client intends to exercise his right against self incrimination based on the potential for criminal action if called to testify in Waymos case against Uber. Attorneys for Uber told the court that Levandowski has a good story to tell and that if he testifies, his testimony would make it clear that Uber is not taking advantage of any of the information he downloaded from Waymo on the way out the door.

That would be a legitimate point, said the judge. Maybe you can convince me of that. But first, Levandowski has to agree to testify.Im sorry that Mr. Levandowski has got his got himself in a fix. Thats what happens, I guess, when you download 14,000 documents and take them, if he did. But I dont hear anybody denying that, Alsup said.

Then the judge warned Ubers attorney,If you think for a moment that Im going to stay my hand because your guy is taking the Fifth Amendment and not issue a preliminary injunction to shut down that youre wrong, according to a report by Autoblog.The court is considering a temporary restraining order against Uber and has set May 3 as the date when it will hear arguments for a permanent injunction.

Obviously, Waymos allegations are not evidence. But the timing of Levandowskis departure from Waymo and Ubers success with its autonomous driving cars is, as they say, curious. It will be interesting to see if Ubers Nothing to see here. Move along strategy convinces the judge not to issue a temporary restraining order.

Tags: Anthony Levandowski, Otto self driving trucks, Uber autonomous car testing, Waymo suit against Uber

Steve Hanley I have been a car nut since the days when Rob Walker and Henry N. Manney, III graced the pages of Road & Track. Today, I use my trusty Miata for TSD rallies and occasional track days at Lime Rock and Watkins Glen. If it moves on wheels, I'm interested in it. Please follow me on Google + and Twitter.

More:
ADVERTISE WITH GAS2 - Gas 2.0

BGR

Morning Agenda: Uber Executive Invokes Fifth Amendment New York Times Anthony Levandowski, the head of Uber's self-driving unit who is accused of stealing technology from his former employer Google, is citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to his lawyers. Why? Because there is potential ... Uber exec invokes the Fifth Amendment in Google patent squabbleBGR Uber's Anthony Levandowski invokes Fifth Amendment rights in Waymo suitTechCrunch Uber exec asserts Fifth Amendment rights in Waymo lawsuitLeftLane News The Tech Portal -Ars Technica -Forbes -New York Times all 77 news articles »

View original post here:
Morning Agenda: Uber Executive Invokes Fifth Amendment - New York Times

Funding for Donald Trumps Mexico border wall will be front and center in next months budget debate, but there could be a broader constitution barrier staying in the way of the projects long-term completion.

There has been more media and academic discussion in the past few weeks about the feasibility of the U.S. government acquiring the land needed to build a wall, of any size, that extends over 1,300 additional miles between the United States and Mexico, not including land that doesnt already have walls or natural barriers.

Overall, the Trump wall project would stretch about 2,000 miles, including existing fences and barrier built in past years. According to a GAO report from 2015, about one-third of that land belongs to the federal government and tribal authorities. The other two-thirds of that land, mostly in Texas, belongs to state and private owners.

The Fifth Amendments Takings Clause would allow the federal government to claim the land for public use, provided it pays a fair price for the land as just compensation. Few experts dispute the Trump administrations ability to buy the land. However, the eminent domain process can be a long, expensive process for even the smallest pieces of land.

The often-cited example in this case is the legal battle involving Eloisa Tamez. About eight years ago, the Bush administration started a program to build more than 600 miles of fencing on the California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona borders, and it wanted one acre of Tamezs land in Texas. She went to court and after seven years of litigation, Tamez received $56,000 for a quarter-acre of land along with a security code for the fence.

Randal John Meyer from the Cato Institute wrote about these potential issues back in 2016 when Trump became the apparent Republican nominee, riding a wave of publicity about the wall.

The Great Wall of Trump would mean hundreds, if not thousands, of Tamezes, Meyer said. Citing GAO records, Meyer said it took about a decade to settle all the eminent domain lawsuits involved in the Bush-era fence plan, with about 500 homeowners affected in the plan to put barriers on 700 miles of land - and the federal government owned much of the land used in that project.

The Trump administration wall project is the opposite, Meyer said, since it involves at least 1,000 miles of land that will host a much-bigger wall, and most of that land, especially in Texas, isnt owned by the federal government.

A more recent article by University of Pittsburgh Law School law professor Gerald S. Dickinson gets into specifics about the current wall project. In trying to take land for the wall, the federal government would be held to time-consuming procedures that include consultation and negotiation with the affected parties including private landowners, tribes, and state and local governments before taking any action, Dickinson said.

And then theres the issue of taking property from Native American nations. The members of the Tohono Oodham Nation own 62 miles of border land in Texas, but they also have cultural roots in Mexico. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government must take tribal interests into account in these situations. Trump would need a bill from Congress to acquire the tribal lands, which are protected by treaties and other statutory equivalents, Dickinson said.

The end results could be a series of court fights that extend beyond the term of any Trump administration. Any federal eminent domain action on such a large scale against evena few landowners could triggerdecades of court disputesbefore anything is built, Dickinson concluded.

President Trumps proposed budget includes expenses for 20 attorneys to litigate eminent domain problems related to the wall. The lawyers are needed to pursue federal efforts to obtain land and holdings necessary to secure the Southwest border.

Alan Ackerman, an eminent-domain lawyer in Michigan, told The Wall Street Journal that the Trump administration could use a legal tactic by filing large groups of cases. Federal judges have appointed commissioners to oversee disputes over land compensation for very large projects, Ackerman told the Journal.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

Recent Constitution Daily StoriesRecent Stories on Constitution Daily

Court curbs state laws on consumer price displays

Gorsuch confirmation set for next Friday, filibuster drama likely

Podcast: The Gorsuch hearings and the future of the Constitution

Filed Under: Immigration

Read the rest here:
Would the Fifth Amendment stop Trump's Mexico wall? - Constitution Daily (blog)

AUSTIN, TX - MARCH 25: Phil Mickelson looks on after winning his match 4&3 on the 15th hole during round four of the World Golf Championships-Dell Technologies Match Play at the Austin Country Club on March 25, 2017 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

Phil Mickelson has long been known as one of golf's great talkers, but it seems he won't be opening his mouth at an ongoing insider trading trial. Mickelson, who was cleared last year of any wrongdoing in the case involving gambler Billy Walters, could potentially serve as a witness. However, Bloomberg News reported the five-time major champion is unlikely to be called to the stand because he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Mickelson's intention, reportedly, was revealed in court on Monday during a sidebar conference between lawyers and the judge.

"He is on our witness list, but we understand from his counsel he would invoke his Fifth Amendment if called," attorney Barry Berke said, according to a transcript obtained by Bloomberg. "So he will not be called as a witness, although his name will be mentioned."

Billy Walters, a golf buddy of Mickelson, stands accused of making $43 million on inside-trading tips received by Tom C. Davis, the former chairman of Dean Foods Co. Mickelson made nearly $1 million in trades involving Dean Foods after receiving information by Walters, but regulators didn't charge him with any crime. Mickelson has paid back the money and has been named a "relief defendant" by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

During jury selection earlier this month, Mickelson's fame was a common topic of discussion.

"Im going to excuse this juror," U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel reportedly told lawyers out of earshot of the potential jurors. "From my observations, there is an attachment. Mr. Mickelsons name is out there, but this juror impressed me with a different level of reaction. The look of rapture on her face at the mention of his name and her repeatedly saying it wouldnt influence her is enough for me."

At last week's WGC-Dell Match Play, Mickelson told the Associate Press, "I'm not a part of that . . . I'm out. I won't be called."

"I haven't even thought about it," Mickelson continued. "I don't think I'm going to say any more."

RELATED: Understanding the Phil Mickelson case

WATCH: GOLF DIGEST VIDEOS

See the original post:
Phil Mickelson to take the Fifth if called as a witness in insider ... - GolfDigest.com