Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major Investor Sues Theranos

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 234 posts

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#111

Post by shard972 »

lmartel wrote: post #77
Fricken wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Madoff did was illegal and malicious from the outset. Do you believe that when Holmes was handed the opportunity, at 19, to bring the Edison to market that she set out with the intent of defrauding investors? The only thing she's provably guilty of thus far is believing in her company a little more than is sensible and being preternaturally competent as a fundraiser. When Musk claims he can get people to Mars fo…

There's a difference between saying "I believe we can develop X" and "we currently have X." As I understand it, Holmes and Theranos did the latter. And that's fraud.

I think the point though is how far away is that from Musk?

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#112

Post by capkutay »

sytse wrote: post #21
mikeryan wrote: post #17

Not that I'm surprised that the firm sued but I wonder what their end goal is and how they're planning on getting any sort of meaningful settlement from a company that's currently on fire. This seems mostly a face-saving measure.

Theranos raised $348.5M Private Equity on March 1, 2015. There is probably still cash on the balance sheet. Maybe by filing a suit they hope that the company will be liquidated and to be at the front of the line when the proceeds get split.

That was about 18 months ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they were burning cash at a phenomenal rate (over $10m a month). They won't be able to do a big cash settlement without raising more money.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#113

Post by FireBeyond »

oneloop wrote: post #49
davidw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: how does this not trigger a "stampede for the exit" including lawsuits for everyone else who wants to get their money back?

Probably. I'd imagine that's why Theranos will insist part of the deal is that the exact terms will never be disclosed.

Their other investors will be entitled to the balance sheets as is. They can't just say "and an undisclosed sum to [prior investor]" and redact their balance and liabilities.

To the public, yes.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#114

Post by mikeash »

shard972 wrote: post #111
lmartel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between saying "I believe we can develop X" and "we currently have X." As I understand it, Holmes and Theranos did the latter. And that's fraud.

I think the point though is how far away is that from Musk?

The answer is "extremely far, so it's not sensible to compare them."

It's perfectly fine to say "We are going to attempt to build something, here's our plan" and then fail. It's completely unacceptable to say "We have something" when you don't.

The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it works, we'll begin commercial flight soon, the line for reservations is on your left, please bring your checkbooks."

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#115

Post by rdtsc »

spotman wrote: post #86
Fricken wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Madoff did was illegal and malicious from the outset. Do you believe that when Holmes was handed the opportunity, at 19, to bring the Edison to market that she set out with the intent of defrauding investors? The only thing she's provably guilty of thus far is believing in her company a little more than is sensible and being preternaturally competent as a fundraiser. When Musk claims he can get people to Mars fo…

I agree with your sentiment, but another piece of the puzzle here should be considered: Playing fast and loose with health care, that may be key to determining whether you have some life-threatening disease, is a big deal. This is not like taking some VC money for the next social network, and having no chops to pull it off. Peoples lives could come into play.

Exactly. If Elon wants to spend his billions building spaceships, as long as they don't routinely fall and kill people, then everyone will cheer for him and that's fair. Screwing up people's blood tests and then seemingly lying about, is a whole different thing.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#116

Post by 36bydesign »

djf1 wrote: post #104
alexqgb wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternately, it reflects the tenor of the story and the facts it contains. You could say this is inappropriate editorializing, but that makes the obviously absurd implication that fraud is a neutral thing, and that there are many good kinds of fraud in additional to the bad ones. If you're reporting clear facts about something unambiguously bad, then it's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support…

It's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article, but that's not what the parent is questioning. If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. An unflattering photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.

So no photo is the way to go? Unless the article is about taking photos?

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#117

Post by shard972 »

mikeash wrote: post #114
shard972 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point though is how far away is that from Musk?

The answer is "extremely far, so it's not sensible to compare them." It's perfectly fine to say "We are going to attempt to build something, here's our plan" and then fail. It's completely unacceptable to say "We have something" when you don't. The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it…

> The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it works, we'll begin commercial flight soon, the line for reservations is on your left, please bring your checkbooks."

Devils advocate but isn't that what SpaceX told facebook when launching their satellite? I would assume they asked for money to launch that thing and I would also assume facebook didn't want it blown up.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#118

Post by nickpsecurity »

mozumder wrote: post #109
logicallee wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it does. We (readers here, you, me, etc) are far outside of mainstream at this news site, HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. When you go from default subreddits to niche ones, the journalidtic integrity improves substantially. Yes, yes, once outside the mainstream, integrity suddenly improves, across the board.

> HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. Mainstream media has FAR higher journalistic standards than independent media. Major media sites have volumes of books that their reporters follow for their editorial process. AP has a style guide you can buy (and vet). Independent media follow no such journalistic rules. Never trust independent media. Mainstream corporate media is far more trustworthy, since they are…

You just argued that mainstream media has rules, that they problems they bring in are well-understood, and independent media is untrustworthy. You provided evidence for two of them. You did not in any way show mainstream media to be more trustworthy than independent media. If anything, they're clearly not due to all the times they've been caught manipulating their audiences, lying, or even justifying a right to lie. They're both untrustworthy and consistently subversive in how they do things.

So, the proper response is to do just what honest journalists or even agents in intelligence collection are taught to do: use diverse sources, rate their integrity, identify their biases, and merge them in a way that accounts for the two. It's what I have to do if I rely on the mainstream sources. It's been clear on a regular basis that their goal is to hold interest of specific demographics to keep them looking at ads rather than inform them. They're also very prone to self-censorship of anything that gets in the way of that due to cash flow.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#119

Post by nickpsecurity »

bbarn wrote: post #52
julianpye wrote: post #6

One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders. In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.

She looks insane in every photo I've ever seen of her. Even the company vetted ones her eyes are always wide open and she looks nervous.

Eh, I see where you're going. There's two ways to look at that, though. One is worrying about her sanity. The other is thinking she's an energetic, ambitious person pushing her product and company. You'll see a lot of what's in the photos if you ever delve into the world of sales teams and marketing execs. ;)

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#120

Post by mikeash »

shard972 wrote: post #117
mikeash wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is "extremely far, so it's not sensible to compare them." It's perfectly fine to say "We are going to attempt to build something, here's our plan" and then fail. It's completely unacceptable to say "We have something" when you don't. The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it…

> The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it works, we'll begin commercial flight soon, the line for reservations is on your left, please bring your checkbooks." Devils advocate but isn't that what SpaceX told facebook when launching their satellite? I would assume they asked for money t…

There's no comparison to be made between an accident occurring in an inherently risky field and peddling technology that you know doesn't work.

Nitpick mode: Facebook didn't own that satellite and their only involvement in it was a plan (now, obviously, altered) to lease a decent chunk (but by no means all) of its capacity from its owner once it was operational. I'm not sure why everyone decided it was Facebook's satellite.

Post reply on HN