[valuearb]

Why would Uber allow discovery if they think they are already going to win?

There is nothing wrong with Uber talking to Levandowsky while he was at Google, and nothing wrong for him to do it as long as he didn't violate his NDA. If Uber said, "hey, we really want to build a strong team for self driving, you should leave Google and come here", that's totally fine as well.

It's even fine if they say "start a separate company and recruit a team, and we'll either invest or buy it".

Google has a high bar here. They have to show their assets were "laundered" into Uber. And they have to show that Uber knew it and encouraged it. In the first case they'd only have a case against Levandowsky and a very limited one against Uber. It's only in the second where Uber's liability becomes substantial.

[stupidhn]

So what happens if Uber is "innocent" and Levandowski is guitly as an individual? Seems odd that they could benefit from him stealing the tech, even if they didn't know.

[valuearb]

They can't, they'd have to surrender the tech and may face some consequences. But far less than if they knew and orchestrated the theft.

[CPLX]

> Why would Uber allow discovery

That's... not how discovery works...