Business Intelligence

 Discussion no:1 The legal issue involved in this case:  The legal disputes can be extremely complicated. It keeps dealing with intellectual property, and the capability of high-technology workers have to be working on their jobs for competition. Lawyers from Waymo demanded possibly on considerable damage if Waymo would sell secrets that will be used by competitors. His legal team based on the digital for cynics investigation that will be a prude deliberately, which is copied from the personal Files to cover downloading. Most of the workers who left the organization had interviewed to remind them they had signed an agreement relating to the trade secret when they were in the job the organization. Why did Waymo agree to take Uber’s shares instead of money? Waymo agreed to settle so that it was not able to prove any actual damage. To win the case, Waymo had to prove real damage. Future cost is tough to compute. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Uber was using any of Waymo’s trade secrets, and Uber had already fired Levandowski. Uber agreed to pay Waymo because the legal case constituted a possible delay in its development of self-driving cars, which is critical for the future of Uber. Also, legal fees were mounting (Uber is involved in several other legal issues related mostly to its drivers). Fighting Waymo did not ensure success, given the deep pockets of Google. Waymo sent a clear message that it would protect its leading self-driving cars’ position at any cost (Sharda et al., 2020). Meaning of intellectual property:  According to the case study, intellectual property means a confidential organization or business information that offers ab enterprise a competitive advantage. A trade secret is an intellectual property that generates the case. Mostly, unauthorized use of trade secrets is always a violation of the law (Castellaneta, Conti & Kacperczyk, 2017). In the case, Waymo had pioneered the self-driving car making him eligible to sue Uber and Levandowski. Briefly describe what you can learn from this Vignette in two short paragraphs of not more than six lines in each paragraph. One lesson that we can learn is the role of employees in protecting intellectual property rights. In the case of Waymo, it had an exit interview where Levandowski assured the company that his future plans had nothing to do with competing against the company. Ideally, his contract barred him from ever competing against his employer. Hence, from the case, it is clear that employees working in the high tech sectors can still join the competition. Thus, there should be a trusting relationship between employees and their employers. The other lessons are that companies must also exercise due diligence when they hire new employees. In this case, the activity of Levandowski ended up threatening the future of Uber self-driving cars (Sharda, Delen & Turban, 2020). The prolonged fact meant delays in implementing the project, while the outcome of the case remained uncertain. It could have gone either way.  Discussion no:2  Top of Form Legal issues involved in this case In every sector, the stealing of data is an important mistake occurred by the former employees. As this case is the perfect example of data-stealing, so it had some legal issues, which are unique, because the case was unique. The Waymo Company’s former employee Levandowski has stolen much data from his office while he worked. After the resignation of Levandowski, he established a self-driving car company, but it was sold to Uber and he was employed to Uber Company. Waymo Company then alleged Uber that its employee stole their secret data, which is related to organizational secrets or may be called an asset (Turban, Sharda, & Delen, 2010). The lawyer of Waymo Company claimed that it was very bad or maybe worse if the competitors use the secret assets of Waymo by Levandowski. The court thought that both the companies are very popular companies and a settlement should be appropriate to close the case. Settlement between Uber and Waymo without money but shares Uber and Waymo both are very popular; a case was filled between them by stealing the data by a former employee, who presently works in Uber Company. The court proposed for a mutual understanding between them, and for that, Waymo claimed a $245 million share form Uber. Uber agreed that, because Uber did not steal anything from that company, Levandowski stole the secret information. Waymo thinks that in the future it will be more costly if the data will not be captured, so it is better to purchase some share from Uber and maintain that data very carefully. Waymo is a very trusted company and Uber so it is better to settle a share and collect the information that Uber has from the Levandowski. Personal data is necessary, without personal capacity, no one can exist in the world, so it should be noted that Waymo did the perfect thing. Meaning of Intellectual Property Various types of property exist in business organizations, but intellectual assets play a big role. As the recent world stored their data in the systems so it is needed to say that it should be protected (Lemley, 2019). Asset related and financial related documents are the most sensitive elements of an organization. These are called intellectual assets because an organization depends on these issues and the competitors always try to capture it at any cost. Personal Learning In this case, the main factor is data-stealing from a company. Every company focuses on the security of secret data. The competitors always try to steal the data from different sources of that company. According to self-identification, every company has its internal power or capacity. Other companies or a former employee can steal the information from the victim company so it would very dangerous for the victim company. To sustain the business environment, it is needed to secure the data as early as possible. In most of the cases, a lump sum amount has been given or claimed by the victim company. Share claiming is the best strategical way for mitigating future loss and can control or maintain by self-judgment. According to many criticizers, Uber should not be recruited Levandowski, because he was the former employee of Waymo corporation. Therefore, it should be noted that it is very important to detect the honest employee and dishonest employees. Based on the study, every company should inquire about their newly recruited employee before his/her employment. Uber paid the claimed share, but it should be appropriate for the Uber, they should also get justice. In these circumstances, it should be noted that every company should be careful while recruiting some persons, who have already experienced and worked in the competitors’ company.