FIA says has new evidence in spy case
Posted by mika19b
the two employees were given suspended prison sentences by a german court afaik, but the FIA never took any action.
Sim
All Hail The New York Giants - Winners of Superbowl XXI, XXV and XLII!
"I'd love to know what goes on in that crazy head of yours sometimes, Sim..." - Locke Cole
Sim
All Hail The New York Giants - Winners of Superbowl XXI, XXV and XLII!
"I'd love to know what goes on in that crazy head of yours sometimes, Sim..." - Locke Cole
"The economic espionage act is US law, and thus not applicable to this case."
It's an example of how the current affair can be seen in other parts of the world and why outside of the FIA's legal vacuum Ferrari have absolutely no reason to be held responsible for Stepneys actions.
You might think otherwise, but judging by the ‘avviso di garanzia’ handed to McLaren on Saturday the law in Italy is pretty similar concerning the definition of trade secrets.
"Tibis cites three points in the notifications: possession of industrial secrets, sporting fraud and sabotage"
[www.formula1.com]
Also one of the charges made by Ferrari against Stepney is revealing industrial secrets.
Furthermore
Italy provides strong protection for trade secrets. Trade secret theft is a crime (Article 513, 623 Codice Penale). The full panoply of remedies for trade secret misappropriation are available (Article 2598(3), 2600 Codice Civile). There is a third-party liability. The new Italian Code of Industrial Property (“Codice della proprietà industriale”), which consolidates all previous IP laws and which came into force on March 19, 2005, provides legal protection for corporate secret information. The Code provides that anyone who acquires or receives corporate secret information shall be bound not to use or reveal the company information and the commercial or techno-industrial experience to third parties (Article 98 and 99).
Subject Matter of Trade Secrets
Technical, technological, financial, marketing or commercial information, in the form of reports, communications (including internal), studies, written accounts, lists, data, tables, cards, printouts and anything else – either on paper or on a magnetic,optical or magnetic-optical support (art. 98 IP Code).
Requirements
In order to be protected by the IP Code the information must be secret — that is, difficult to access — have a commercial value because of being secret, and must be kept reasonably protected as secret by the owner (art. 98 IP Code).
Governed by Statutory or Common Law
Trade secrets are protected by art. 98-99 of the IP Code, by art. 2598-2599-2600 of the Italian Civil Code concerning unfair competition, by art. 621 of the Criminal Code regarding the disclosure of the content of secret documents, and art. 623 of the Criminal Code regarding the disclosure of scientific and industrial secrets.
Standards for Proving Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Standards will depend on the remedy used. Article 99 of the IP Code prohibits the disclosure of trade secrets and refers to the rules on unfair competition. The rules of the criminal Code require wilful action, knowledge that the information is secret and knowledge of the secret by reason of its profession or office (this only applies to 623).
It's an example of how the current affair can be seen in other parts of the world and why outside of the FIA's legal vacuum Ferrari have absolutely no reason to be held responsible for Stepneys actions.
You might think otherwise, but judging by the ‘avviso di garanzia’ handed to McLaren on Saturday the law in Italy is pretty similar concerning the definition of trade secrets.
"Tibis cites three points in the notifications: possession of industrial secrets, sporting fraud and sabotage"
[www.formula1.com]
Also one of the charges made by Ferrari against Stepney is revealing industrial secrets.
Furthermore
Italy provides strong protection for trade secrets. Trade secret theft is a crime (Article 513, 623 Codice Penale). The full panoply of remedies for trade secret misappropriation are available (Article 2598(3), 2600 Codice Civile). There is a third-party liability. The new Italian Code of Industrial Property (“Codice della proprietà industriale”), which consolidates all previous IP laws and which came into force on March 19, 2005, provides legal protection for corporate secret information. The Code provides that anyone who acquires or receives corporate secret information shall be bound not to use or reveal the company information and the commercial or techno-industrial experience to third parties (Article 98 and 99).
Subject Matter of Trade Secrets
Technical, technological, financial, marketing or commercial information, in the form of reports, communications (including internal), studies, written accounts, lists, data, tables, cards, printouts and anything else – either on paper or on a magnetic,optical or magnetic-optical support (art. 98 IP Code).
Requirements
In order to be protected by the IP Code the information must be secret — that is, difficult to access — have a commercial value because of being secret, and must be kept reasonably protected as secret by the owner (art. 98 IP Code).
Governed by Statutory or Common Law
Trade secrets are protected by art. 98-99 of the IP Code, by art. 2598-2599-2600 of the Italian Civil Code concerning unfair competition, by art. 621 of the Criminal Code regarding the disclosure of the content of secret documents, and art. 623 of the Criminal Code regarding the disclosure of scientific and industrial secrets.
Standards for Proving Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Standards will depend on the remedy used. Article 99 of the IP Code prohibits the disclosure of trade secrets and refers to the rules on unfair competition. The rules of the criminal Code require wilful action, knowledge that the information is secret and knowledge of the secret by reason of its profession or office (this only applies to 623).
"So you will only read the stuff coming out from ferrari? or people that only agree with ferrari?"
i said i am not convinced with any word from those 2 people Stoddart and lauda
in any case and in any situation or even in those battle in the race and who is
right and who is wrong... that is all don't change what i said
"Do you respect Sir Frank Williams and Sir Jackie Stewart? Because they have said the same thing as Lauda and Stoddy have"
yes i do.
speed freak
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 09:01PM by assadof1.
i said i am not convinced with any word from those 2 people Stoddart and lauda
in any case and in any situation or even in those battle in the race and who is
right and who is wrong... that is all don't change what i said
"Do you respect Sir Frank Williams and Sir Jackie Stewart? Because they have said the same thing as Lauda and Stoddy have"
yes i do.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 09:01PM by assadof1.
Morbid, you dont happen to be in the legal industry do you? lol
Circuit Thermalito
Liverpool Waterfront Circuit (WIP)
Circuit Thermalito
Liverpool Waterfront Circuit (WIP)
Nah. I worked on discussing, implementing and give feedback on a lot of legislation in top level management for some 3-4 years. I was part of the management of my University, representing the students. I have read piles and piles of documents like these. Even ran a complaint against the top brass, and took it all the way to the Minister of Science and Development. I don't think I need to make the point, that me and my political ally won 
That aside, I do think it is wrong that MacLaren people had that dossier. If MacLaren have lied about the "it was a lone rogue" story, I think they deserve to fry for it. Protecting the championship excitement be damned. I'd rather be able to trust the sport in the long term future, than have championship excitement (which is all but over anyway - who realistically thinks, all things staying the same, that it won't be a MacLaren driver!), for the next 3-5 races.
I think the real harm in this farce of a scandal, is that no one even knows whats going on any more, and nobody really knows who to trust. All versions of the interests at stake are damning for the sport, and expose it as rotten at the very highest levels. It doesn't make a difference if it is the FIA president abusing power to bash a hated enemy like Ron, if it is Ron trying to get away with cheating his way to a championship, or if it is Ferrari that is milking this case to get the championship outside of the sporting events, namely in the courts.
No matter which explanation you think is most correct (and yes, the snafu is so pervasive that is all we can do now, think and guess!), or any combination thereof, it all exposes the sport as corrupt on it's own power.
It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 10:12PM by Morbid.
That aside, I do think it is wrong that MacLaren people had that dossier. If MacLaren have lied about the "it was a lone rogue" story, I think they deserve to fry for it. Protecting the championship excitement be damned. I'd rather be able to trust the sport in the long term future, than have championship excitement (which is all but over anyway - who realistically thinks, all things staying the same, that it won't be a MacLaren driver!), for the next 3-5 races.
I think the real harm in this farce of a scandal, is that no one even knows whats going on any more, and nobody really knows who to trust. All versions of the interests at stake are damning for the sport, and expose it as rotten at the very highest levels. It doesn't make a difference if it is the FIA president abusing power to bash a hated enemy like Ron, if it is Ron trying to get away with cheating his way to a championship, or if it is Ferrari that is milking this case to get the championship outside of the sporting events, namely in the courts.
No matter which explanation you think is most correct (and yes, the snafu is so pervasive that is all we can do now, think and guess!), or any combination thereof, it all exposes the sport as corrupt on it's own power.
It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 10:12PM by Morbid.
"Yes and I could show you examples from Bahraini and Brazilian law, and argue exactly the same way you do, and reach entirely different conclusions - so what is the point?"
The point is that there are certain arguments that simply reflect one's personal opinion and have nothing to do with actual laws or events happening and yet are in no way deemed irrelevant to the subject discussed. Certainly a quotation of the actual law dealing with EE has noless relevance than one poster's opinion.
The argument seemed also to be over the definitions of theft which according to Dave didn't happen. And yet you can bring up almost any law in the world dealing with trade secret protection and the acts committed by Stepney would fit the definition of theft.
"You talked about espionage."
No, i only cited the EEA to argue about definitions and to show that there's no penalty in the real world for the employers that had trade secrets stolen from them by their own employees.
"The bold part is exactly Dave's point, namely that it was a top-level Ferrari employee that handed out the dossier to Coughlan. With the rule that the team as a whole is responsible for the action of the individual, then Coughlan being guilty for Maclaren, equals Stepney dissolving the dossier as a trade secret on the ground that Ferrari did not "keep it reasonably protected as a secret"."
It's impossible to conclude that the trade secrets weren't reasonably protected just because Stepney managed to get hold of them. The ‘avviso di garanzia’ mentions industrial secrets which are covered in the article 623 of the Criminal Code and are part of the law on trade secrets, so most likely the Modena Magistrate was satisfied that reasonable measures had been taken to protect the information.
The point is that there are certain arguments that simply reflect one's personal opinion and have nothing to do with actual laws or events happening and yet are in no way deemed irrelevant to the subject discussed. Certainly a quotation of the actual law dealing with EE has noless relevance than one poster's opinion.
The argument seemed also to be over the definitions of theft which according to Dave didn't happen. And yet you can bring up almost any law in the world dealing with trade secret protection and the acts committed by Stepney would fit the definition of theft.
"You talked about espionage."
No, i only cited the EEA to argue about definitions and to show that there's no penalty in the real world for the employers that had trade secrets stolen from them by their own employees.
"The bold part is exactly Dave's point, namely that it was a top-level Ferrari employee that handed out the dossier to Coughlan. With the rule that the team as a whole is responsible for the action of the individual, then Coughlan being guilty for Maclaren, equals Stepney dissolving the dossier as a trade secret on the ground that Ferrari did not "keep it reasonably protected as a secret"."
It's impossible to conclude that the trade secrets weren't reasonably protected just because Stepney managed to get hold of them. The ‘avviso di garanzia’ mentions industrial secrets which are covered in the article 623 of the Criminal Code and are part of the law on trade secrets, so most likely the Modena Magistrate was satisfied that reasonable measures had been taken to protect the information.
"Requirements
In order to be protected by the IP Code the information must be secret — that is, difficult to access — have a commercial value because of being secret, and must be kept reasonably protected as secret by the owner (art. 98 IP Code).
The bold part is exactly Dave's point, namely that it was a top-level Ferrari employee that handed out the dossier to Coughlan. With the rule that the team as a whole is responsible for the action of the individual, then Coughlan being guilty for Maclaren, equals Stepney dissolving the dossier as a trade secret on the ground that Ferrari did not "keep it reasonably protected as a secret"."
this part interests me the most. since the start of this whole saga, the one thing that has puzzled me is why on earth there is a 780page document detailing everything from car designs, to setups and financial data? knowing how these thinsg work in motorsports (and i would imagine most comapnies for that matter) it is unlikely that you would have this data gathered all in one place, simply for the fact that if it was stolen you would be screwed. and if you did have such a document, then only the top brass would know about it/have access to it, i.e. Todt, di Montezemelo. Stepney may be "top-brass" but as i understand it, around the time this happened Stepney had already voiced his concerns and displeasure, and so would be unlikely to be given access to this.
Of course, the other possible explanation is that Stepney himself compiled this document. This is feasible, however, Ferrari's system is lilely set up so that each employee can only access the data that is relevant to them, so it is Unlikely stepney would have access to financial data, engine data (?) and even if he did, someone would (should) of noticed that someone was accessing all of these confidential files, and copying them/printing them.
However, my other thoughts are that Coughlan (afaik) has admitted to having this docuent. Stepney has denied all knowledge of this. Is it possible that someone higher than Stepney is involved in this in some way? Or indeed had knowledge
[/edit] missing end of word :|
Sim
All Hail The New York Giants - Winners of Superbowl XXI, XXV and XLII!
"I'd love to know what goes on in that crazy head of yours sometimes, Sim..." - Locke Cole
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 11:47PM by sasjag.
In order to be protected by the IP Code the information must be secret — that is, difficult to access — have a commercial value because of being secret, and must be kept reasonably protected as secret by the owner (art. 98 IP Code).
The bold part is exactly Dave's point, namely that it was a top-level Ferrari employee that handed out the dossier to Coughlan. With the rule that the team as a whole is responsible for the action of the individual, then Coughlan being guilty for Maclaren, equals Stepney dissolving the dossier as a trade secret on the ground that Ferrari did not "keep it reasonably protected as a secret"."
this part interests me the most. since the start of this whole saga, the one thing that has puzzled me is why on earth there is a 780page document detailing everything from car designs, to setups and financial data? knowing how these thinsg work in motorsports (and i would imagine most comapnies for that matter) it is unlikely that you would have this data gathered all in one place, simply for the fact that if it was stolen you would be screwed. and if you did have such a document, then only the top brass would know about it/have access to it, i.e. Todt, di Montezemelo. Stepney may be "top-brass" but as i understand it, around the time this happened Stepney had already voiced his concerns and displeasure, and so would be unlikely to be given access to this.
Of course, the other possible explanation is that Stepney himself compiled this document. This is feasible, however, Ferrari's system is lilely set up so that each employee can only access the data that is relevant to them, so it is Unlikely stepney would have access to financial data, engine data (?) and even if he did, someone would (should) of noticed that someone was accessing all of these confidential files, and copying them/printing them.
However, my other thoughts are that Coughlan (afaik) has admitted to having this docuent. Stepney has denied all knowledge of this. Is it possible that someone higher than Stepney is involved in this in some way? Or indeed had knowledge
[/edit] missing end of word :|
Sim
All Hail The New York Giants - Winners of Superbowl XXI, XXV and XLII!
"I'd love to know what goes on in that crazy head of yours sometimes, Sim..." - Locke Cole
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2007 11:47PM by sasjag.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.