On Day 3 of Waymo v. Uber, a Cinematic Moment With Kalanick on the Stand
With the former Uber CEO on the stand, Waymo's lawyer got Michael Douglas' iconic "greed is good" speech from the movie "Wall Street" into evidence.
February 07, 2018 at 06:31 PM
4 minute read
SAN FRANCISCO — Michael Douglas' Academy Award-winning performance in “Wall Street” played a supporting role on the third day of the high-profile trade secrets trial between Waymo and Uber.
With former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick on the stand for his second day of testimony, Charles Verhoeven of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan played the iconic “greed is good” speech that Douglas delivered while portraying the fictional corporate raider Gordon Gekko. The video came into evidence via text message Kalanick received in March 2016 from Anthony Levandowski, the former Google engineer at the heart of Waymo's trade secrets case.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California allowed Verhoeven to play the speech despite objections from Uber's lawyer, Karen Dunn of Boies Schiller Flexner, that it would be prejudicial.
“Even if [Kalanick] didn't look at it, Levandowski did and Levandowski is the guy who allegedly stole all the trade secrets,” Alsup said.
Levandowski sent Kalanick the YouTube clip of Douglas' speech while Uber was in negotiations to buy his startup company, Ottomotto. Wrote Levandowski: “Here's the speech you need to give ;-)”
Kalanick sat quietly drinking from a plastic water bottle as the clip played on screens in front of jurors and the packed gallery in Alsup's courtroom. After the clip finished, Verhoeven asked Kalanick if he clicked the link.
“I don't know. I think I would,” Kalanick said. “There's a winky face right there,” he added, pointing to the emoticon Levandowski included in the message.
“It's a famous speech,” said Verhoeven, obviously trying to draw a Gekko-to-Kalanick parallel for jurors.
“It's a movie. It's fake,” Kalanick said.
As entertaining and dramatic as the interlude was, it illustrated part of the difficulty Waymo has had in putting together its case with Levandowski so far asserting his Fifth Amendment right to not testify. Verhoeven's questioning showed that Kalanick was eager to hire Levandowski and move forward in the company's development of autonomous cars. Meeting notes have come into evidence, which claim Kalanick told underlings to go forward with the Ottomotto deal and have the company's legal department find ways to “minimize the pain.”
But under questioning from Boies Schiller's Dunn, the former CEO swore the Ottomotto acquisition had nothing to do with acquiring Google trade secrets.
“We hired Anthony because we felt he was an incredible visionary, a very good technologist, and he was also very charming,” Kalanick said. “Ultimately, self-driving is part of the future and Uber wants to be part of that future.”
Kalanick described how Google initially invested in Uber in 2013—with Google co-founder Larry Page showing up to meet him for a meeting that year in a self-driving car.
“From our perspective that was the relationship,” he said. “It was kind of like little brother with the big brother.”
However Kalanick testified the relationship soon grew strained after Uber began hearing rumors that Google might enter the ride-sharing market in 2014. When Uber started its own autonomous vehicle unit with researchers from Carnegie Mellon University the next year, Kalancik said that Google's Page “made if very clear” that he was “super unhappy. … Unpumped.”
Kalanick said Page told him that Uber was taking Google's IP.
“Your people are not your IP,” Kalanick said he told Page. “If you have an issue on IP, we have very clean processes to make sure that nobody that we hire from your company brings any of your stuff over.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readOpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
Meta Seeks Declaratory Judgment in VR Eyewear Tech Patent Infringement Case
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 2'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 3Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 4These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 5'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250