Discussion Board Assignment 1-1 Mention at least two specific points from the ar
ID: 365798 • Letter: D
Question
Discussion Board Assignment 1-1
Mention at least two specific points from the article. The specific information should be presented in quotation marks and underlined. (1 point)
Relation of information in the article to specific courses that you have taken in the School of Business. (1 point)
Discussion of all parts of the question at a critical level, not just recitation of facts from the article (3 points) Discussion at a critical level includes evaluating the information presented in terms of consistency/inconsistency with what you have learned or experienced and implications for the future.
................................................................................................................................................................................
Uber article in Wall Street Journal
Do you believe that Uber is responsible for the stolen files from Alphabet, or do you think telling the new hire not to bring the files was adequate?
Former Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Travis Kalanick knew an engineer had allegedly stolen Google files before hiring the engineer last year, according to Uber's attorneys. It is the first evidence that Uber executives were aware of the files of self-driving technology that are at the center of a lawsuit between Uber and Google parent Alphabet Inc. However, Uber attorneys said, when Mr. Kalanick learned of the files in March 2016, he instructed the engineer to not bring them to Uber. That engineer, former Google executive Anthony Levandowski, later told Uber he destroyed the files before Uber bought his startup for $680 million in August 2016 and he was appointed to lead Uber's self-driving team, they said The revelation came in court documents filed late Wednesday, shedding new light on what Uber executives knew about the allegedly stolen files and when Alphabet's driverless-car unit Waymo "has been making up a story that Uber asked Mr. Levandowski to bring material over Ifroml Google, when the truth is the exact opposite, Uber lead attorney Arturo Gonzalez said in an interview. "This new development proves Uber never wanted any Google info Waymo said in a statement, "The evidence clearly shows Waymo's trade secrets have been used in Uber's self-driving car project. By their own admission, Uber leadership knew about these unlawful acts and far from doing the right thing, they tried to conceal it." In the filing. Waymo argued the new details showed Uber violated an earlier court order to turn over any information about the deletion of the allegedly stolen files. Uber's Mr. Gonzalez said he planned to fight that allegation. Waymo has accused Uber of colluding with Mr. Levandowski to steal trade secrets from Google and incorporate them into Uber's driverless-car technology Uber denies the allegations. Attorneys for Mr. Levandowski, who was fired by Uber last month for not cooperating in the lawsuit, didn't respond to a request for comment. In response to a Waymo request for information, Uber attorneys said earlier this month that in March 2016, when Uber was looking into Mr. Levandowski's driverless-truck startup as an acquisition target, Mr. Levandowski told Mr. Kalanick and other Uber executives that he had "five discs in his possession containing Google information Uber attorneys said Mr. Kalanick then told Mr. Levandowski he "should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information Write to Jack Nicas at jack.nicas@wsj.comExplanation / Answer
we can say that Uber was not at involved intot stealing the driverless cards documents from Google. As Mr Levandwoski stole it on his risk only which can be found from the above descriptions.
Above detail also states that the Uber knew that he has stolen files from Gooogle and still hired him. This was unethical for any company to hire an employee whose track record is of stealing companys data. He can do same with Uber as well. So in the first place, Uber should not have hired such a person itself and telling him not to bring the files was not adequate because current laws in copyright are very strict and it proved to be a danger on higher level. Thus Uber shuould have taken a decision on this matter over this person and should have closed the issues with information sharing with Google.