FIA says has new evidence in spy case
Posted by mika19b
i believe that whatever happens alonso and hamilton will get a seat nexr year and it will probably be for prodrive if not mclaren.
They will be using a mclaren chassis and engine so its likely they will go there as most of the other seats are taken and prodrive have not announced theirs yet. I think they have been told to wait just incase macca are thrown out next year.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2007 06:03PM by DJSKYLINE.
They will be using a mclaren chassis and engine so its likely they will go there as most of the other seats are taken and prodrive have not announced theirs yet. I think they have been told to wait just incase macca are thrown out next year.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2007 06:03PM by DJSKYLINE.
I would assume so - if Macca get banned for next year surely it'll be the constructor? Although I expect the team to be banned - otherwise they could conceivably buy a customer chassis and run next year.
oh yes,thats true 
i'm sure Bernie's comments in the ITV interview were purely money-motivated, i.e. punish Lewis and kick McLaren out = loss of tv viewers, as Marcl said. it probably doesn't have much to do with what's fair or just, it's all to do with keeping F1's newest and hottest attraction in a racecar to keep people tuning in, whether his team are innocent or guilty as hell.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
I hope Mclaren gets roasted in the hearing. The espionage is bad enough, but what's worse is Frank Williams and Jackie Stewart's verbal diarrhea claiming the whole affair "could damage the sport by scaring off investors" and that the investigation is being pursued with "enormous tenacity" by the FIA, a subtle little slip that implies Mclaren is being unjustly accused.
Even more classless is Ron Dennis' strategy to try to beat the charges - accusing Renault and other teams of the same crime his bunch is guilty of. Dennis is the bottom of ther barrel as far as I'm concerned, and if a team ever deserved a serious penalty its the 2007 version of Mclaren.
The only guy I feel sorry for is Alonso, for letting the money lure him into the Mclaren cesspit. I bet he would gladly pay to be rid of these idiots and back to Renault...
"There are some pikeys there at Turn 10 putting tarmac down - what do you think of that?" - Martin Brundle
Even more classless is Ron Dennis' strategy to try to beat the charges - accusing Renault and other teams of the same crime his bunch is guilty of. Dennis is the bottom of ther barrel as far as I'm concerned, and if a team ever deserved a serious penalty its the 2007 version of Mclaren.
The only guy I feel sorry for is Alonso, for letting the money lure him into the Mclaren cesspit. I bet he would gladly pay to be rid of these idiots and back to Renault...
"There are some pikeys there at Turn 10 putting tarmac down - what do you think of that?" - Martin Brundle
erm....the theft and transferral of 780 pages of technical documents, and possible subsequent use of that data to gain insight into and advantage over a rival team.
For example:
Espionage (a loanword from French espionnage) or spying is a practice of obtaining information about an organization or a society that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.
(thanks Wikipedia.LOL.)
N.B.*If the F.I.A. come out and raise another claim, or drop this claim completely I will stand corrected. It must also be remembered I have NO IDEA what's going on anymore anyway. Every article I read mentions possession of documents being the cause of McLarens woe, but the F.i.A. guilty verdict, which has now been thrown out to be re-heard was a breach of the sporting code and apparently un-related to, and does not mention 'possession' of said documents as a punishable offence.
"The WMSC ruled that although the team breached sporting regulations because one of its employees possessed confidential Ferrari documents, there was "insufficient evidence" that McLaren used this information and thereby compromised fair competition." -from ITV
Anyway, now Flavor Flav and Renault look set to be dragged through the mud, the end result will probably be that ALL teams use vehicles outside the regulations, because the regulations are 'fuzzy' to allow designers space to innovate and interpret the technical regulations, the direction this all will take is we will end up with a single Chasis and electronics kit for everyone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 03:12AM by Razorsedge.
For example:
Espionage (a loanword from French espionnage) or spying is a practice of obtaining information about an organization or a society that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.
(thanks Wikipedia.LOL.)
N.B.*If the F.I.A. come out and raise another claim, or drop this claim completely I will stand corrected. It must also be remembered I have NO IDEA what's going on anymore anyway. Every article I read mentions possession of documents being the cause of McLarens woe, but the F.i.A. guilty verdict, which has now been thrown out to be re-heard was a breach of the sporting code and apparently un-related to, and does not mention 'possession' of said documents as a punishable offence.
"The WMSC ruled that although the team breached sporting regulations because one of its employees possessed confidential Ferrari documents, there was "insufficient evidence" that McLaren used this information and thereby compromised fair competition." -from ITV
Anyway, now Flavor Flav and Renault look set to be dragged through the mud, the end result will probably be that ALL teams use vehicles outside the regulations, because the regulations are 'fuzzy' to allow designers space to innovate and interpret the technical regulations, the direction this all will take is we will end up with a single Chasis and electronics kit for everyone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 03:12AM by Razorsedge.
LOL, sorry Dave was doing some hefty editing to the end of my post but the stuff your commenting on remains un-edited.
Now, Espionage or spying has taken place. Receipt of the documents or to use the above definition "obtaining information without permission" is espionage, or shall we call it spying.
It has taken place, that's why we're all in this mess. Even though it was an individual acting without orders from McLaren who was involved in the act.
Now, Espionage or spying has taken place. Receipt of the documents or to use the above definition "obtaining information without permission" is espionage, or shall we call it spying.
It has taken place, that's why we're all in this mess. Even though it was an individual acting without orders from McLaren who was involved in the act.
But as Jackie pointed out - "obtaining information without permission" has been going on for ever in F1 - and everyone knows it. Individuals have been switching teams and taking data with them - teams have taken photos of important parts of each other's cars for years - the list goes on and on. Remember when the pictures came out of McLaren's 3-pedal system back in the late '90's - those photo's were taken by someone from another team (IIRC Ferrari). Now THAT is worse surely, the team ordering an employee to take photo's of a rival's car so they could copy it rather than a team being given another teams technical documentation? And the above definition of espionage is Wikipedia's - NOT a legal definition. AFAIK the legal definition is deliberate obtaining - i.e. if I was to find the plans to the Eurofigher on the floor outside my house, I would have "obtained information without permission" but would not have committed espionage. If I was to then use those plans, I would be in breach of intellectual copyright and patent laws. Until we know what this new evidence is, we have no idea whether McLaren used the information or not - but one thing that is certain is that McLaren are not under investigation for obtaining the documents - that has been demonstrated to have been an individual (believed to be Stepney) from inside Ferrari.
You guys are straining credibility with your hair splitting over the exact definition of the term espionage.
What is plain and simple is that Mclaren is accused of having a detailed technical treatise from Ferrari in their possession, a technical treatise they obtained without Ferrari's permission. If proven by the FIA then that by itself is a violation, even possibly criminal, and would fit within the established definition of "industrial espionage".
How it came into their possession is irrelevent, since Ferrari did not willingly give it to them...
"There are some pikeys there at Turn 10 putting tarmac down - what do you think of that?" - Martin Brundle
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 03:55AM by Jagdpanzer.
What is plain and simple is that Mclaren is accused of having a detailed technical treatise from Ferrari in their possession, a technical treatise they obtained without Ferrari's permission. If proven by the FIA then that by itself is a violation, even possibly criminal, and would fit within the established definition of "industrial espionage".
How it came into their possession is irrelevent, since Ferrari did not willingly give it to them...
"There are some pikeys there at Turn 10 putting tarmac down - what do you think of that?" - Martin Brundle
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 03:55AM by Jagdpanzer.
If mclaren do get chucked out i doubt i will watch another race this year, watching 5 years of schumacher winning the championship was bad enough and seeing the prancing ponies win purely because they have no competition will be even worse.
Its in the sports own intrest to find a punishment that does not involve suspending the only competition ferrari will have for the remainder of this year and the next.
_______________________________________________________________________
Its in the sports own intrest to find a punishment that does not involve suspending the only competition ferrari will have for the remainder of this year and the next.
_______________________________________________________________________
"No spying took place and nothing was stolen."
No.
Just one example from The Economic Espionage Act of 1996
ยง 1832. Theft of trade secrets
(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will , injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly--
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization
I suggest people take a closer look at subsection (3)
"The holder of the information in this case was Stepney"
None of the information transferred was his intellectual property.
"And if that is the case, nobody can claim that Ferrari were not responsible for the plans and information being in McLarens hands (but of course they can claim that McLaren broke rules/laws by accepting them).
You have to apply the same rules to everyone. You cannot chop and change them to suit."
Look at the EEA:
the term 'trade secret' means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if --
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret
Should owner be held responsible for the theft of trade secrets with the intention of injuring when reasonable measures had been taken to keep that information secret?
No.
Just one example from The Economic Espionage Act of 1996
ยง 1832. Theft of trade secrets
(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will , injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly--
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization
I suggest people take a closer look at subsection (3)
"The holder of the information in this case was Stepney"
None of the information transferred was his intellectual property.
"And if that is the case, nobody can claim that Ferrari were not responsible for the plans and information being in McLarens hands (but of course they can claim that McLaren broke rules/laws by accepting them).
You have to apply the same rules to everyone. You cannot chop and change them to suit."
Look at the EEA:
the term 'trade secret' means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if --
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret
Should owner be held responsible for the theft of trade secrets with the intention of injuring when reasonable measures had been taken to keep that information secret?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.