[michael_storm]

Neither party is contesting that the documents were stolen [1]. Everyone is basically assuming that he did it; Uber's defense in this preliminary-injunction hearing is that the stolen documents never made it to Uber.

[1] http://wsau.com/news/articles/2017/mar/31/waymo-uber-judge-s...

[caseysoftware]

Yes, this looks like it's more to establish that it was one guy alone and has never had any impact on the organization, their processes, etc.

If they can do that, it would change from Uber vs Waymo/Alphabet to Levandowski vs Waymo/Alphabet and Levandowski vs Uber.

If I was Uber, I know which fight I'd want to step into.

[AnimalMuppet]

Uber wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to not be stopped by an injunction from Waymo, but it also wants to keep Levandowski as the head of its self-driving car program. Probably those two desires are in conflict; probably Waymo will push in the right places to force them to be in conflict.

[thinkingthingy]

"Yes, this looks like it's more to establish that it was one guy alone and has never had any impact on the organization, their processes, etc."

Exactly. But unfortunately for Uber, it's a bit hard to establish that when the guy in question is the head of your entire self-driving program!