[throwaway729]

> The outcome of this will teach us all very valuable lessons.

Lesson #1: Don't steal.

> I can't be the only one who is a little paranoid that if I start my own shit I'll be sued or that I may even be sued for some of the side projects I'm working on even though I've never taken any code or resources from my company.

Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth.

Assuming their accusations aren't truthful, of course.

[evilsnoopi3]

> Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth.

Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer. Then listen to them. Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt however it is portrayed in the media - often times it is necessary even for innocent parties to invoke. I am not a lawyer and this shouldn't be construed as legal advice.

[throwaway729]

> Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer

Which is exactly what Levandowski did. And then, under advice from his lawyer, he plead the fifth.

> Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt

In criminal cases.

In civil cases, you can still plead the fifth without facing contempt. But the jury is free to draw its own conclusions. As is the judge. If you don't believe me, see the transcription of Alsup's tounge lashing.

[dragonwriter]

> In civil cases, the jury is free to draw its own conclusions

Actually, in the US, whether or not the jury is free to draw negative inferences from invoking the fifth varies by which jurisdictions law controls (the feds have one set of rules, states each have their own, and their are rules for when state and federal issues are in play in the same case.)

And, in any case, there is a difference from a negative inferences drawn from your failure as a result of your agent's invocation of the Fifth (e.g., Uber based on Levandowski's actions) and a negative inference against you for your invocation of the Fifth.

[throwaway729]

Thanks for the clarification. I.e., the fifth itself doesn't protect you from negative inference in civil cases, but some jurisdictions provide that protection?

In any case, I stand by my lesson: avoid actions that lead to situations where these distinctions matter.

[dllthomas]

Your Lesson #2 is wrong. If someone accuses you of theft listen to your lawyer, whether you are innocent or guilty.

[throwaway729]

And if your lawyer tells you to plead the fifth and clam up, don't be surprised when your business receives an injunction.

I'm not a lawyer, but Alsup is, and he states as much in an abundantly clear tongue lashing of Uber's lawyers:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3533784-Waymo-Uber-3-...

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Of course you should talk to lawyers first, just as Levandowski did.

But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself.

[dragonwriter]

> But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself.

In a perfect world, being actually innocent would mean zero risk of conviction of a crime with a vigorous and dedicated defense, no matter what the prosecution did.

We don't live in a perfect world, and it is, in fact, quite possible for a situation to exist where you are actually innocent and on-balance have better expected results by invoking the Fifth.

Even accepting potential negative consequences that may have outside of the criminal realm.

[throwaway729]

I agree in principle and understand your point.

But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client.

At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.

[dragonwriter]

> But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client.

Okay, how about where they actually physically have the documents that are the subject of the case, cooperating with discovery would reveal them, but they didn't actually use them in the new job or take them with intent, even though the other people accused alongside did actually steal smaller numbers of documents, and use them in the new job without your clients knowledge, so that your only real hope besides gambling on a jury's inferences of intent is that a criminal case is never initiated because your clients possession of the information doesn't come to light.

> At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.

A plea is non-testimonial, does not open up cross examination, and does not open up threat of perjury. And, no, they don't have to do that if criminal charges are never filed, which is exactly what you are hoping for if you are invoking the Fifth in other circumstances because of potential future criminal prosecution.

[throwaway729]

My assumption is that intentionally copying IP onto a personal device and removing that device from the office -- regardless of any actual intent to use that data -- is still theft. Which would make the former employer's claims truthful.

It's super unclear to me how you would accidentally retain a copy digital documents...?

Like I said, it's hard to imagine this scenario actually happening. But for good measure:

Lesson #3: Leave work at work and startup at home.

[Consultant32452]

You can't selectively plea the fifth. You can't go into court, say things in your favor, and then clam up and plea the fifth when things get dicey for you. As soon as you start testifying in your defense you have waived the right and you'll be held in contempt if you take the fifth afterward. It would be unusual, but you can be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial/conviction until the judge decides to release you or you resolve the issue that put you in contempt.

[kelnos]

This bit is different: Levandowski has not been charged with a crime. There is no plea, guilty or not guilty, for him to enter. He is not even the defendant in the civil suit.

He (or his lawyer) believes that talking about these documents could open him to criminal liability (whether he's guilty of anything or not), so he is choosing to remain silent.

Now, if other evidence is unearthed and Levandowski is indeed charged with a crime, and it made it to trial, that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.

[throwaway729]

Right, things are a bit confused at the moment because the parent's hypothetical is so close to the case at hand.

I'm addressing parent's concrete hypothetical -- where the person accused of theft is the ceo of the company.

> that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.

I think I'm wrong here, actually :)

dragonwriter provides a compelling explanation, elsewhere in this thread, for why entering a "not guilty" plea is very different from stating "I'm not guilty" outside the context of entering a plea.

[fowlerpower]

Exactly. I agree with you, you should always lawyer up and never say anything your lawyer does not advise.

[MichaelBurge]

> Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth

What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? I know from Psychology that telling a jury to disregard information makes it seem more valuable and true, but that's more speculative than what you seem to have seen.

[dragonwriter]

> What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth?

You open yourself up to perjury charges as well as the charges you were trying to protect against with the Fifth, plus you open yourself to unlimited cross-examination and impeachment of your testimony.

Oh, wait, you said benefit.

[throwaway729]

> What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth?

Avoiding an injunction against your business.

[MichaelBurge]

I think I see: You were comparing the GP to someone in Kalanick's position, not to Levandowski. I don't think Uber itself has pleaded the fifth - though they've made an argument related to pleading the fifth - so I misunderstood you.

I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts: News has the problem that outrage generates clicks and views. The question of "Should a company distance itself from executives accused of a crime by a competitor?" seems better served by referring to decades of case law, than by reacting to any news article.

[throwaway729]

> I think I see: You were comparing the GP to someone in Kalanick's position, not to Levandowski.

I am considering GP's situation directly -- leaving a company to create a start up and then being sued.

If he didn't steal, he should say so to save his business. If he doesn't say so, he risks his business. That's the downside.

Of course, if he did steal, he should shut up and lesson #2 explicitly doesn't apply.

The present situation is different -- Levandowski's fate probably isn't tied to Uber's and certainly vice versa.

> I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts

I stand by the "don't steal" lesson :-)