Read the complaint, it's pretty bad. Dude googles how to copy his work email from gmail, and also copies hot corporate documents to his private dropbox the day he quits for Uber. All the while emailing the Lyft founders saying "I still love you like brothers".
I try to avoid people and companies with poor ethics.
Why would Lyft agree to a confidential settlement? The bad publicity for Uber is more valuable than whatever money they can get from their former employee.
I just think it's unlikely this comes to trial simply because of the evidence. And if it doesn't go to trial, that means a settlement and I think these sorts of things are customarily confidential. IANAL.
I'd think a court would be OK with sealing any documents containing Lyft's confidential information, after establishing the accuracy of the documents' description.
The factual question is whether the defendant did in fact copy all that information as described, and there might be additional questions later about whether that information was passed to Uber, and if so, how that came to pass. If Lyft were to prevail and a jury was awarding damages, then it would be enough to know what sort of documents were taken to establish whether they were important commercial information or not, no?
Not just VanderZanden - notice they're also suing 'Does 1-10' which is lgal biolerplate for 'defendants we can't identify by name yet.' Uber executives or the firm itself could easily be named as co-defendants. I don't know how to assess the scope of the potential damages - while I don't think it would be fiscally catastrophic for Uber, it could get very very nasty.
The complaint alleges that a few days before resigning he made a to-do list (using his working computer naturally) that included "Backup Lyft Email and Contacts".
I try to avoid both unethical people and people who are dumb as rocks. I think this guy qualifies as both, if he actually did corporate espionage unencrypted over the corporation's own network.
I'm interest to know if Uber knew about this. I wouldn't hire people who take documents with them they stole in their previous company - who knows what they do once they leave.
My guess is that this ends with him fired from Ubert. Now that Lyft has presented the evidence, that may be the only way for Uber to avoid liability itself.
I think at this point, it's clear to me that Lyft is the one with poor ethics.
I would literally never have heard of Lyft without all of their accusations against Über. Über is trying to poach drivers; Über is getting our C-level guys to baldly incriminate themselves and then jump ship to Über; Über is stealing our cookies; waaaah waaah waaah Uber.
Honestly, I find it impossible to believe the Über team is both this B-movie-level evil, and stupid. It's really, really hard to believe that a COO of a successful startup wouldn't know how to copy documents that are on his OWN MACHINE (the private dropbox documents).
So, since Lyft obviously gets assloads of free publicity from all these accusations, and since I've never seen an actual court judgment against Über reported, I somewhat doubt that these are actually true, or at least not actually provable, since like others have said, if Lyft could successfully sue Über over any one of these things, the media would have even more of a field day than it's having now.
So okay. Über stole your drivers, your COO, shot your dog, made a mean face at you, whatever. Prove it in court. Until then I'm done with this bullshit. And I'll be happily using Über.
(The only thing that Über has really done that's unethical is be as brutally capitalist as they can, but I find that a difficult accusation to level against them since it's not like any other company is doing exactly the same thing. That's a systemic issue, not a local one.)
Edit: You know, if Lyft was running a black-hat PR campaign against Über, it'd be just like them to shill on HN. Thanks for the downvotes, Lyft.
> Honestly, I find it impossible to believe the Uber team is both this B-movie-level evil, and stupid. It's really, really hard to believe that a COO of a successful startup wouldn't know how to copy documents that are on his OWN MACHINE (the private dropbox documents).
> So, since Lyft obviously gets assloads of free publicity from all these accusations, and since I've never seen an actual court judgment against Uber reported, I somewhat doubt that these are actually true, or at least not actually provable, since like others have said, if Lyft could successfully sue Uber over any one of these things, the media would have even more of a field day than it's having now.
So just to clarify, you think Lyft is making these accusations up for the sake of getting publicity?
I admit it's far fetched, but to quote the Romans, who benefits?
Fabricating evidence seems a bit of a stretch, but hey, we're already believing that a COO can't copy files.
I'd say that the most likely explanation is a nice mix of malice and stupidity on both sides. Maybe Uber did do something wrong. Maybe Lyft blew it out of proportion and went to all the journalists they knew to get it out there. Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate triple ruse.
But seriously, are there any publicly available judgments about any of these yet? It's getting unbelievable without them.
Uber completely ignored Philadelphia's telling them that launching uberX there is illegal, then let their own drivers get their personal vehicles impounded in a game of chicken.
Yet Lyft has the poor ethics. Right.
Considering there is serious civil harm arising from making up a lawsuit, do you have any evidence that Lyft's allegations are false or do you just flap your gums because you like Uber more? It never ceases to amaze me how people in all considerations can pick a side and stick to it, ignoring all data that doesn't fit their narrative. You like Uber more, nobody is begrudging you that. Turning your preference into calling Lyft unethical and the rest of your comment is, quite honestly, stupid.
Lyft launched in Miami first, which is a market that Uber didn't enter because driving there without a taxi license was a criminal offense, not merely a fine. Uber has always launched in cities where they knew they could defend the first drivers on the road without long term consequences for those drivers. Lyft launched in Miami without regard to the long term consequences for those drivers that started riding with them. I don't think Uber entered Miami for months and only well after informing the city of Miami that they are going to enter the market if the city doesn't start enforcing their own laws. I don't know about you, but Lyft is no saint either and probably worse if they're willing to put drivers in a position where they end up with a criminal record.
Hey "throwaway", I explicitly pointed out that Uber is as bad as any other company. Where do you think your clothing comes from, a unicorn? No, they come from a child slave in an Indonesian sweatshop. There's no company in the world with good ethics.
That's a great attempt at a diversion, though. It's almost enough to make someone forget that in this country, the United States of America, the greatest and freest country on the face of the earth, all people, including and especially corporations, are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. Lyft needs to do more than just allegate for me to believe them. So if you have any evidence that Lyft's allegations are TRUE, you can show me (and the court! I'm sure they'd love it) now or take a hike.
I try to avoid people and companies with poor ethics.