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.