What if 'McLaren' are found innocent in a proper court?

[air cooled]

At the first hearing the FIA say McL have no case to answer.

After the FIA get copies of the e-mail exchange McL get hit for $100mil.

So WTF is in that e-mail exchange that makes it a $100mil crime ????

We have discussed that the tyre filling is important but that there appears to be only 3 options worth trying and those should have been common knowledge to the pit lane insiders.

So WTF ???? and why did Alonso want to test something that he should have known about anyway ?

I believe, based on my own commercial knowledge, that patents and IP are covered by a common law across the EU so it should not change matters if the court is in Italy or England. IF Ferrari can prove their IP was used without their consent then the case is proved where ever the court. Bloody big gilded IF at that start of that statement before you bite my 'ead off now folks.

[flemke]

air cooled said:

At the first hearing the FIA say McL have no case to answer.

After the FIA get copies of the e-mail exchange McL get hit for $100mil.

So WTF is in that e-mail exchange that makes it a $100mil crime ????

We have discussed that the tyre filling is important but that there appears to be only 3 options worth trying and those should have been common knowledge to the pit lane insiders.

So WTF ???? and why did Alonso want to test something that he should have known about anyway ?

I believe, based on my own commercial knowledge, that patents and IP are covered by a common law across the EU so it should not change matters if the court is in Italy or England. IF Ferrari can prove their IP was used without their consent then the case is proved where ever the court. Bloody big gilded IF at that start of that statement before you bite my 'ead off now folks.

As you say, a very big "IF".
I wonder how much McLaren IP Nicholas Tombasiz took with him to Ferrari when he left McLaren last year.
Then again, he had come to McLaren from Ferrari. He didn't stay at McL. too long, which makes one wonder whether he might have been sent by Ferrari to McLaren to glean as much information as he could and then bring it back home to share with his comrades .

[Adrian W]

flemke said:

As you say, a very big "IF".
I wonder how much McLaren IP Nicholas Tombasiz took with him to Ferrari when he left McLaren last year.
Then again, he had come to McLaren from Ferrari. He didn't stay at McL. too long, which makes one wonder whether he might have been sent by Ferrari to McLaren to glean as much information as he could and then bring it back home to share with his comrades .

How dare you sir, are you questioning the integrity of Ferrari or their personnel they would never stoop to such low tricks to gain any sort of advantage.






Would they bollox and if they got caught Max and the boys would do f/all about it.

[Riverside]

flemke said:

I wonder how much McLaren IP Nicholas Tombasiz took with him to Ferrari when he left McLaren last year.
Then again, he had come to McLaren from Ferrari. He didn't stay at McL. too long, which makes one wonder whether he might have been sent by Ferrari to McLaren to glean as much information as he could and then bring it back home to share with his comrades .

You could be right but it's the FIA coming down hard on spying that's unusual, not the spying itself.

I think the biggest concern for me (as a fan of the sport) is that with an inspection like this the teams & fans alike can trust the impartiality of the inspectors but not how the results of the inspection will be treated by the governing body.

McLaren still have the potential problem of having to prove their innocence rather than the FIA trying to prove their guilt.

Will some small issue of commonality be treated as not conclusive enough to prove guilt, or as not conclusive enough to prove 100% innocence?

[lojohn]

flemke said:

lojohn said:

jacobyte said:

I do now know what charges the Italian courts are charging McLaren for.

ButI do know that in an English court of law McLaren would have been found innocent, as there was no evidence that they:

a) gained a competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari
b) brought the sport into disrepute

No evidence at all. It would be laughed out of court. In fact it wouldn't even have reached court.

====================================

a) We have seen copies of emails where Alonso asked De La Rosa to ask Coughlan to ask Stepney details about weight distribution and tyre-air - and to make sure he gets the answer urgently - before the next McLaren test. How would that count not as "gained competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari"???
b) F1 has never been brought into disrepute as much as this year by McLaren. In fact the only thing McLaren are champions of this year is "bringing the sport into disrepute" - no doubt.

The evidence is so firm that Ron never even argued his $100m fine - and he would have if he had any moral position of strength, I am sure of that.

Also, as Zaktoo said, getting the info and then not using it is stupid - and it is dangerous, because when you get caught it costs you $100m or more!

It appears that you are new to PH, lojohn. Welcome.

You might wish to invest a bit of time in reading previous GM threads discussing the issues surrounding Stepney, et al. Having done so, you might well change the opinions that you have expressed in your first post.

Cheers.

Huh?

I read a lot and write a little -

What was written above was really annoyingly incorrect - so I commented.

Besides the fact that I am new to PH, do you have any comments of a factual nature on my post?

[stephen300o]

lojohn said:

flemke said:

lojohn said:

jacobyte said:

I do now know what charges the Italian courts are charging McLaren for.

ButI do know that in an English court of law McLaren would have been found innocent, as there was no evidence that they:

a) gained a competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari
b) brought the sport into disrepute

No evidence at all. It would be laughed out of court. In fact it wouldn't even have reached court.

====================================

a) We have seen copies of emails where Alonso asked De La Rosa to ask Coughlan to ask Stepney details about weight distribution and tyre-air - and to make sure he gets the answer urgently - before the next McLaren test. How would that count not as "gained competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari"???
b) F1 has never been brought into disrepute as much as this year by McLaren. In fact the only thing McLaren are champions of this year is "bringing the sport into disrepute" - no doubt.

The evidence is so firm that Ron never even argued his $100m fine - and he would have if he had any moral position of strength, I am sure of that.

Also, as Zaktoo said, getting the info and then not using it is stupid - and it is dangerous, because when you get caught it costs you $100m or more!

It appears that you are new to PH, lojohn. Welcome.

You might wish to invest a bit of time in reading previous GM threads discussing the issues surrounding Stepney, et al. Having done so, you might well change the opinions that you have expressed in your first post.

Cheers.

Huh?

I read a lot and write a little -

What was written above was really annoyingly incorrect - so I commented.

Besides the fact that I am new to PH, do you have any comments of a factual nature on my post?

Ah your first run-in with Flemke, i'm afraid all his elaborate conspiracy theories have sent him mad as a brush.

[flemke]

Adrian W said:

flemke said:

As you say, a very big "IF".
I wonder how much McLaren IP Nicholas Tombasiz took with him to Ferrari when he left McLaren last year.
Then again, he had come to McLaren from Ferrari. He didn't stay at McL. too long, which makes one wonder whether he might have been sent by Ferrari to McLaren to glean as much information as he could and then bring it back home to share with his comrades .

How dare you sir, are you questioning the integrity of Ferrari or their personnel they would never stoop to such low tricks to gain any sort of advantage.






Would they bollox and if they got caught Max and the boys would do f/all about it.

Ferrari integrity
jumbo shrimp
fresh frozen
Russian cuisine

[flemke]

lojohn said:

flemke said:

lojohn said:

jacobyte said:

I do now know what charges the Italian courts are charging McLaren for.

ButI do know that in an English court of law McLaren would have been found innocent, as there was no evidence that they:

a) gained a competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari
b) brought the sport into disrepute

No evidence at all. It would be laughed out of court. In fact it wouldn't even have reached court.

====================================

a) We have seen copies of emails where Alonso asked De La Rosa to ask Coughlan to ask Stepney details about weight distribution and tyre-air - and to make sure he gets the answer urgently - before the next McLaren test. How would that count not as "gained competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari"???
b) F1 has never been brought into disrepute as much as this year by McLaren. In fact the only thing McLaren are champions of this year is "bringing the sport into disrepute" - no doubt.

The evidence is so firm that Ron never even argued his $100m fine - and he would have if he had any moral position of strength, I am sure of that.

Also, as Zaktoo said, getting the info and then not using it is stupid - and it is dangerous, because when you get caught it costs you $100m or more!

It appears that you are new to PH, lojohn. Welcome.

You might wish to invest a bit of time in reading previous GM threads discussing the issues surrounding Stepney, et al. Having done so, you might well change the opinions that you have expressed in your first post.

Cheers.

Huh?

I read a lot and write a little -

What was written above was really annoyingly incorrect - so I commented.

Besides the fact that I am new to PH, do you have any comments of a factual nature on my post?

It's not obvious that anything that jacobyte wrote was "annoyingly incorrect".

As regards your observations on his post:

- To gain a competitive advantage (unfairly) requires one to do something that one otherwise would not have done.
You assert that McLaren did such by virtue of the fact that the drivers gossiped about Ferrari weight distribution and tyre gas. Are you aware of any evidence whatsoever that:
- Whatever Stepney told Coughlan was accurate,
- Coughlan shared that information with any engineer or other person who actually had the ability to alter the car,
- McLaren did not have that information or knowledge already, and
- McLaren used that information to alter its own car?

- You've got an interesting way of construing "disrepute". You apply the word to McLaren unsparingly, yet the only traitor was a Ferrari employee, Ferrari employed an illegal device to win a race (which result ended up deciding the WDC), and there is no evidence whatsoever that any Ferrari IP was employed by McLaren at any time.
Then Ferrari and the FIA contrived the most dramatic reactions imaginable and made sure that the entire world heard their hysterical version.
So who exactly did the bringing into disrepute?

It's pretty obvious why McLaren did not appeal, and it has nothing to do with the evidence "being so firm".

As to your comment regarding the "stupidity" of having someone else's IP but not using it, not many people think that Ron Dennis and Paddy Lowe are stupid men.
Has it not occured to you that they did not use the IP not because they are "stupid", but because they never had it in the first place?

[air cooled]

Now you have overreached yourself Flemke!

There is nothing wrong with Russian Cuisine, Citizen, as long as you can afford quality ingredients.

No one has picked up on the news that the McL fine is to be paid partly from future TV revenue. That,to me, is part of the fix. It is to stop McL telling the Bernie & Max show to "F**k Off!" and McL not to take part causing a massive drop in TV ratings and loss of revenue to Bernie & Max.
That's also why the McL drivers could still "take part" in the drivers' championship - without them who's going to watch.
Thats the same as Max saying Hamilton may be bad for F1 - loss of ratings and profit to Bernie & Max.

F1 is a business not a sport and it is run by an East End trader of second hand motors. Yer Honest Guv.

To briefly return to Mr.K's original thread now:
wasn't McL found guity by the FIA of breaching the FIA's "Sporting Code"
(whatever the feck that is) ? The court case in Italy is for infringement of Ferrari intellectual property. Not necessarily the same thing.

[flemke]

air cooled said:

There is nothing wrong with Russian Cuisine, Citizen, as long as you can afford quality ingredients.

Are you sure it's not just a matter of the vodka obliterating one's sense of taste?

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

Has it not occured to you that they did not use the IP not because they are "stupid", but because they never had it in the first place?

Without getting drawn into the rights and wrongs of the floor itself, did McLaren not use inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification of the flexible floor?

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

Has it not occured to you that they did not use the IP not because they are "stupid", but because they never had it in the first place?

Without getting drawn into the rights and wrongs of the floor itself, did McLaren not use inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification of the flexible floor?

IMO, yes.

The thing is, that did not bring the sport into disrepute, nor was it prejudicial to competition. To the contrary, it was the illegal floor itself which was prejudicial to competition. Bringing to light the operation of the floor had the effect of restoring competition, and of enhancing the repute of the sport.

Taking information that was volunteered to you and using it to expose another entrant's cheating is hardly an offence.

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

Has it not occured to you that they did not use the IP not because they are "stupid", but because they never had it in the first place?

Without getting drawn into the rights and wrongs of the floor itself, did McLaren not use inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification of the flexible floor?

IMO, yes.

Again, leaving the floor itself out of it, I feel this weakens McLaren's position significantly. It proves that they had information from Ferrari which they should not have had, and that they used it.

The assertion that they only used some bits of the information they held, and then only for the power of good, whilst paying no heed whatsoever to any of it that could have given them a competitive advantage requires an extraodinary amount of faith in the team personnel.

[10 Pence Short]

jamieboy said:

Without getting drawn into the rights and wrongs of the floor itself, did McLaren not use inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification of the flexible floor?

To the best of my knowledge this was after Stepney had independently told the FIA and the FIA had chosen not to act.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

Has it not occured to you that they did not use the IP not because they are "stupid", but because they never had it in the first place?

Without getting drawn into the rights and wrongs of the floor itself, did McLaren not use inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification of the flexible floor?

IMO, yes.

Again, leaving the floor itself out of it, I feel this weakens McLaren's position significantly. It proves that they had information from Ferrari which they should not have had, and that they used it.

The assertion that they only used some bits of the information they held, and then only for the power of good, whilst paying no heed whatsoever to any of it that could have given them a competitive advantage requires an extraodinary amount of faith in the team personnel.

I see your point, but it ignores the fact that F1 personnel give up information about their own teams' cars all the time.
About a month ago Montoya - no friend of Ron's - stated in an interview what we all knew, namely that most everybody in F1 knows most everybody else, and it's only natural when they get together that they will share little bits and pieces. For a member of one team to hear something "inside" about another team is SOP. This does not even get into the amount of information that personnel take with them when they move teams, such as when Tombazis went from Ferrari to McLaren, and then back to Ferrari again two years later.
What is the probability that the '07 Ferrari benefited from the aerodynamic knowledge that Tombazis acquired at McLaren and could have taken with him back to Italy? I would say it is a near-certainty.

What compounds the weakness of the argument that McLaren had some Ferrari IP, so how does one know that they did not abuse it, is that in this case Stepney had already alerted the FIA directly about the illegal floor, but they did nothing about it. If the FIA were not willing to take action on their own, then Ferrari might have been able to use the floor for the entire season.
It appears that the FIA were turning a blind eye, and only took action when McLaren forced their hand.

[jamieboy]

10 Pence Short said:

jamieboy said:

Without getting drawn into the rights and wrongs of the floor itself, did McLaren not use inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification of the flexible floor?

To the best of my knowledge this was after Stepney had independently told the FIA and the FIA had chosen not to act.

I believe you're right. But I don't see how that alters the fact that McLaren used inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification, and that's what I'm driving at. Not the rights and wrongs of the floor per se, but whether or not McLaren used the information that they held.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

10 Pence Short said:

jamieboy said:

Without getting drawn into the rights and wrongs of the floor itself, did McLaren not use inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification of the flexible floor?

To the best of my knowledge this was after Stepney had independently told the FIA and the FIA had chosen not to act.

I believe you're right. But I don't see how that alters the fact that McLaren used inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification, and that's what I'm driving at. Not the rights and wrongs of the floor per se, but whether or not McLaren used the information that they held.

Someone credible comes to you and tells you that your competitor is cheating.
Are you suggesting that the right thing to do is to ignore what he said and carry on as if you'd never heard it?

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

jamieboy said:

10 Pence Short said:

jamieboy said:

Without getting drawn into the rights and wrongs of the floor itself, did McLaren not use inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification of the flexible floor?

To the best of my knowledge this was after Stepney had independently told the FIA and the FIA had chosen not to act.

I believe you're right. But I don't see how that alters the fact that McLaren used inside info from Ferrari as the basis of the clarification, and that's what I'm driving at. Not the rights and wrongs of the floor per se, but whether or not McLaren used the information that they held.

Someone credible comes to you and tells you that your competitor is cheating.
Are you suggesting that the right thing to do is to ignore what he said and carry on as if you'd never heard it?

I've put some bits of my previous posts in bold, might make it clearer.

I'm not offering an opinion as to whether the floor was legal, nor as to whether the FIA has behaved properly at all times, nor whether it is accepted practice that a certain level of information flows between teams naturally.

The point I'm apparently struggling to make is that McLaren plainly did use at least some of the information they had received from Ferrari.

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

The point I'm apparently struggling to make is that McLaren plainly did use at least some of the information they had received from Ferrari.

That has been accepted by all. I'm not sure where one goes with it, however.

It is contrary to law, and to the Sporting Regulations, to take IP with you when you change employers. They all do it, however, and it is only contested in extremis.

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

jamieboy said:

The point I'm apparently struggling to make is that McLaren plainly did use at least some of the information they had received from Ferrari.

That has been accepted by all.

Excellent, I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your previous comments:

flemke said:

there is no evidence whatsoever that any Ferrari IP was employed by McLaren at any time.
...
Has it not occured to you that they did not use the IP ... because they never had it in the first place?