• Saturday, April 20, 2024
businessday logo

BusinessDay

Pronto.ai vows to deliver despite charges against founder

Pronto.ai vows to deliver despite charges against founder

Self-driving start-up Pronto. AI has said it will deliver its flagship product to customers this year despite being thrown into crisis last Tuesday when Anthony Levandowski, its founder and chief executive, was charged on 33 counts of theft or attempted theft from Google.

“We have deadlines and we are going to meet them — what’s going on isn’t going to affect that,” Robbie Miller, the head of safety who took the reins as chief executive, told the Financial Times.

Pronto’s first product, Copilot, is “Level 2” driver-assist technology giving commercial trucks a set of cameras and predictive analytics

software designed to make driving safer. The product is focused on vehicles on the road today rather than the fully autonomous “Level 4” technology competitors such as Waymo and Zoox are aiming to achieve.

“Is it more compelling to just take the driver out of vehicle? Clearly,” Mr Miller said. “The issue is, the technology is not there yet.”

Allegations against Mr Levandowski first emerged in 2017 when Waymo — which started life as Google’s self-driving car project — sued his then employer, Uber, claiming that he had stolen information months before his departure. Uber paid roughly $250m in shares to settle. Mr Levandowski has always denied the charges. His lawyers last week said: “None of these supposedly secret files ever went to Uber or to any other company.”

Mr Miller was on vacation in Bora Bora when he received the news, prompting an immediate call with senior directors. He was quickly appointed chief executive and took the first flight back to San Francisco to be with the small team of fewer than 100 employees.

The charges could have implications for big tech at a time when antitrust probes are beginning against the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. Some critics believe the criminal charges from federal agents could stifle innovation, noting that the line between intellectual theft and simply using one’s experience at another company can be blurry. Others see the charges as long overdue.