FIA Decision
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by PLYRS 3,Jul 26 2007, 01:33 PM
all kidding aside, i bet the FIA took into consideration that
A) it was given to an M employee by an F employee.
B) M did not break into F's HQ and "steal" the file.
extenuating circumstances (for lack of a better word).
A) it was given to an M employee by an F employee.
B) M did not break into F's HQ and "steal" the file.
extenuating circumstances (for lack of a better word).
Here's a recent case which is very similar. The outcome was not as gentle for the company that was caught with the trade secrets:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cyberc...anchCharge.htm
The Boeing CEO eventually lost his job over this and a separate but similar incident.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 23,749
Likes: 3
From: Erock's my boat!
Originally Posted by matrix,Jul 26 2007, 04:36 PM
Agreed but the fact that they had it for so long (since March) and that if it was not for the copy store clerk, they would still have it...
The FIA found McLaren guilty - period. Why no punishment is absolutely unbelieveable. If they did nothing wrong, why the guilty verdict????
That is what is so astonishing about this - guilt without punishment - another precedent has been set....
The FIA found McLaren guilty - period. Why no punishment is absolutely unbelieveable. If they did nothing wrong, why the guilty verdict????
That is what is so astonishing about this - guilt without punishment - another precedent has been set....
there were 24 people on that board/panel/jury, that had 100% more information than we do, and they came to this conclusion...
you CAN be factually guilty, but many times if there are extenuating circumstances, you can get a suspended sentence.
this reminds me of the OJ verdict...it wasn't gonna be popular, but it still came out the way it did.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by PLYRS 3,Jul 26 2007, 01:46 PM
this reminds me of the OJ verdict...it wasn't gonna be popular, but it still came out the way it did.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 22,863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Jul 26 2007, 03:46 PM
Sorry, but that's the whole reason why "possession of stolen property" is a crime. Otherwise, everybody would be able to claim this.
It absolutely astonishes me that the FIA gave the verdict they did as the penalty should be for BREAKING the rules (which McLaren are guilty of), not by how much they GAINED by breaking them...
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 23,749
Likes: 3
From: Erock's my boat!
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Jul 26 2007, 04:46 PM
Sorry, but that's the whole reason why "possession of stolen property" is a crime. Otherwise, everybody would be able to claim this.
Here's a recent case which is very similar. The outcome was not as gentle for the company that was caught with the trade secrets:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cyberc...anchCharge.htm
The Boeing CEO eventually lost his job over this and a separate but similar incident.
Here's a recent case which is very similar. The outcome was not as gentle for the company that was caught with the trade secrets:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cyberc...anchCharge.htm
The Boeing CEO eventually lost his job over this and a separate but similar incident.
the only crime M was guilty of was POSP....yet F did not initiate a criminal proceeding against M....why? probably cuz there's more to this than we know (and may ever know...)
all they did was start a civil proceeding against the coughlin guy. (and the criminal action against stepney, but that's their own business).
on top of that, i made the point that the theft of material (in the first place) was a far greater crime than the POSP....POSP is a subsequent crime, not a primary crime....and they are NOT equal in their weighting.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 22,863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by PLYRS 3,Jul 26 2007, 03:46 PM
we've all been, and continue to, speculate.
there were 24 people on that board/panel/jury, that had 100% more information than we do, and they came to this conclusion...
you CAN be factually guilty, but many times if there are extenuating circumstances, you can get a suspended sentence.
this reminds me of the OJ verdict...it wasn't gonna be popular, but it still came out the way it did.
there were 24 people on that board/panel/jury, that had 100% more information than we do, and they came to this conclusion...
you CAN be factually guilty, but many times if there are extenuating circumstances, you can get a suspended sentence.
this reminds me of the OJ verdict...it wasn't gonna be popular, but it still came out the way it did.
1 - The FIA ruled that McLaren is guilty. This is a fact you cannot dispute.
2- Then they gave them no punishment. This is another fact that you cannot dispute.
3- Together these make zero sense. If they are guilty, punish them. If they are not, don't say they are guilty...
One or the other, not both....