Alphabet have accused Uber of covering up the theft of trade secrets from Alphabet. Uber drew Alphabets attention after it acquired the self-driving startup Otto, a business founded by Anthony Levandowski, who previously led Alphabet’s autonomous vehicle business. Alphabet claims that Levandowski stole 14,000 proprietary files before leaving to start Otto, and are now suing Uber over allegations the ride-hailing startup misappropriated that technology.

Uber has responded by laying out their case to prove Alphabet’s allegations of the theft of trade secrets are false. Uber claims that Levandowski neither told anyone at Uber that he had downloaded any proprietary information from Alphabet, nor was asked to do so by Uber executives. Uber reinforces their position by stating the great lengths they took to deter Levandowski from bringing any information over from Alphabet, including a clause in Levandowski’s employment agreement that prohibited from doing so.

Uber further states that Alphabet has no evidence that any of the 14,000 proprietary files came to Uber, and that Alphabet is resorting to accusations of a cover-up theory that has been rejected by a Court ruling.

Alphabet continues to claim that Uber are covering up the theft of trade secrets by firing Levandowski only after their actions were exposed in litigation. The case’s presiding judge, William Alsup, hypothesized Uber likely knew or should have known that Levandowski had taken the files, considering the inclusion of a clause in Levandowski’s employment agreement preventing him from sharing the information. On the other hand, Alsup has said that Alphabet has failed to provide strong evidence that Levandowski brought the files to Uber for the express purpose of utilizing the technology.

Uber’s response has been slightly controversial, as two released statements seemingly contradict one another. In the first statement, Uber argued that it had no reason to suspect Levandowski of having deliberately downloading any files for improper use. The files that Levandowski did have on his person at the time of his hiring were just random files he had obtained incidentally over the course of his employment at Alphabet. On the other hand, Uber’s second statement highlights that Levandowski was holding onto files as leverage to obtain a bonus Alphabet had been slow to pay out.

Alphabet argues there was a conspiracy considering that Levandowski downloaded files from Waymo on the same day he met with Uber executives, reporting that after Levandowski’s meeting he downloaded the 14,000 files.

Uber’s position on this issue is unsteady because on one hand, they had no idea that Leveandowski had downloaded the 14,000 files, and that any files he had were random files that were not directly related to the autonomous vehicle technology Waymo uses. But Uber have reported that they specifically stated in the employment agreement that Levandowski was not to use any information illegally obtained from Alphabet, and that they knew Levandowski was planning to use the files as leverage.

But there is also a third option possible: Levandowksi as an individual was responsible for downloading the files in the hopes of either establishing employment with Uber, or as leverage over Alphabet. Uber is not responsible for the theft of trade secrets, as long as they acquiring of Otto was a business venture and not a means to access the trade secrets. In this situation, the burden of responsibility lies of Levandowski, who has been fired for not agreeing to cooperate with the suit.

Alphabet’s reaction and persistent dispute with Uber could also be seen as the seizing of an opportunity to reap benefits from a company that is already has a damaged public perception. In this case, the accusation of a cover up is only a means to reduce competition, and it therefore not justified in terms of ethical business practice.

Featured Image via Wikimedia