I'm not sure there's much in the way of news here and I doubt there will be a bombshell in the term sheet. If there is, the real news will come when the terms are actually disclosed.
<i>"Last week, Uber notified Levandowski that he either needs to deny that he downloaded and took any documents from Google, or to hand over the documents to Google. Otherwise, he would be at risk of getting fired from Uber. Uber has already removed Levandowski from working on any projects related to LiDAR technology.</i><p><i>Levandowski’s lawyers argued that the court’s order to Uber, as well as Uber’s threat to Levandowski, would violate his constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination."</i><p>This is the actually interesting part of the article. Judge Alsop directly addressed the Constitutionality of compelling Uber to use any means necessary, including termination. I doubt that Levandowski's attorneys will prevail.
I have a hard time believing the term sheet says something to the effect of, for $680 million we would like to purchase all your stolen documents please.<p>The article is more about the due diligence reports where it might out that Uber knew that there was stolen documents, which Uber seems keen on keeping out of Waymo's hands.
One of the most fascinating things to me about these sorts of proceedings is the multiple levels on which they operate. From a top level (the complaint) all the way down to preparation for various exits that try to minimize damage.