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

Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#741

Post by bufferoverflow »

seehafer wrote: post #187
tptacek wrote: post #78

Time to kibitz on the likely sentence! You can get the federal sentencing guidelines here: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... They're long and mostly not relevant except for the sections pertaining to Holmes conduct. Here's the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/page/file/1135066/download Holmes was found guilty of one 18 USC 1349 charge, and 3 18 USC 1343 charges; the 1343's s…

From former AUSA, and current white-collar defense attorney Ken White: "She faces a max of 65 years (3x20 + 1x5). And it's not at all clear she'll do less than 20." Apparently the sentences will not necessarily be served concurrently. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478170494130003976?s=20

My prediction: sentenced to 20, out in 10.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#742

Post by acegopher »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #736
evancoop wrote: post #715

The relevant detail, in my mind, is not whether Holmes deserves punishment, or even how much. The relevant detail is how the judge ultimately sentences Holmes, and more importantly, on what basis the judge selects the upper or lower range of possible sentencing outcomes. Considering that BS, stretching of capabilities, and so on are commonplace in the startup world, the point isn't whether Holmes crossed the line (sh…

B.S. and fraud are two different things though. BS in the startup world is commonplace, but not fraud.

What's the difference? Aren't both knowingly lying to affect an outcome?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#743

Post by kube-system »

Hendrikto wrote: post #666
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

> She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone She should be though. People had unnecessary and invasive medical treatment as a direct result pf her fraud.

The jury acquitted her of 4 counts regarding defrauding patients. She may have caused them civil harm, but that’s a different case than what was being considered here.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#744

Post by rleigh »

kragen wrote: post #396
justinator wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they also reverse engineered a lot of the third party machines, in an attempt to make them work the way they wanted to. That's... that's bad.

Reverse engineering is an important right that is protected by centuries of patent and trade secret law in the US and many other countries. It's fundamental to innovation, even though non-innovative bad people like Theranos also do it. Reverse engineering is not bad, and it is dismaying that someone posting on a site called "Hacker News" would think so.

Their use of the term "reverse engineering" is perhaps not ideal.

If they were taking apart and studying the hardware inside competitors' machines, then that would not have been a problem. It's something which many companies do. But they would not be using this for patient testing, they would use it as input to product development and engineering.

Theranos were modifying the machines to operate outside their design parameters. Medical diagnostic equipment is validated at great expense to operate within given parameters to give a diagnostic result which is known to be accurate with a very high probability. They are carefully calibrated and tested to guarantee the accuracy of every test. Tampering with them makes them invalidated and destroys any guarantee of diagnostic result accuracy. The FDA approval for the equipment is only valid if they are operated as intended.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#745

Post by vasilipupkin »

atlantic wrote: post #667
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

Your argument is applicable to all white-collar crime. And it's emotionally-based, because she looks like one of us, not like a stereotypical thug. But in fact, she lied to take money from investors - theft on a grand scale - even if she wasn't wielding a sawn-off shotgun and wearing a ski mask. Edit: aside from that, I agree the potential sentence is very long, but that is characteristic of the US justice system, ri…

looks like one of us? wut?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#746

Post by lbriner »

nathanyz wrote: post #726
evancoop wrote: post #715

The relevant detail, in my mind, is not whether Holmes deserves punishment, or even how much. The relevant detail is how the judge ultimately sentences Holmes, and more importantly, on what basis the judge selects the upper or lower range of possible sentencing outcomes. Considering that BS, stretching of capabilities, and so on are commonplace in the startup world, the point isn't whether Holmes crossed the line (sh…

Lying in both startups and even later stage companies has been way too accepted in the recent past. Granted investors should be doing better due diligence in general, but the amount of acceptable deception going on is mind blowing when you get a chance to see behind the curtain. My hope is that a precedent is set that you can boast and talk about the future, but claiming something to be true which is patently false s…

The definition of fraud is to make false representation for "gain". In many cases, lying is not automatically fraud. The burden of proof is also on the prosecution so if you claim, "Salesforce will transform your business" and someone says it doesn't then they have to prove.

1) A reasonable person would understand the statement as fact rather than hyperbole 2) You have objectively not been transformed in your business 3) The problems are caused solely by your understanding of the Salesforce product and not just that you are a bad business owner

So that's why some things sit in the grey area.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#747

Post by geophile »

evancoop wrote: post #715

The relevant detail, in my mind, is not whether Holmes deserves punishment, or even how much. The relevant detail is how the judge ultimately sentences Holmes, and more importantly, on what basis the judge selects the upper or lower range of possible sentencing outcomes. Considering that BS, stretching of capabilities, and so on are commonplace in the startup world, the point isn't whether Holmes crossed the line (sh…

I think there is a pretty sharp line separating what Holmes tried, and what legitimate startups do. What she claimed had no basis in reality. It's Borat trying to patent a hoverboard, just like in Back to the Future, and telling the VC that he "needs to come up with the science" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXuDhejxz_c). Except that Holmes was worse, claiming that she had the science.

And she insulated herself from scrutiny by packing the board with old powerful men. So old that their critical thinking skills were on the decline (e.g. George Schultz, as described in Carreyrou's book), and whose expertise was NOT in the relevant subject areas.

Holmes was obviously corrupt from the beginning.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#748

Post by pram »

ferdowsi wrote: post #737

I'm loving reading through all of the sickening puff pieces that business/tech journalists put out about her and Theranos. It's funny to think back to 2015 and the hagiographical void still left in tech journo hearts after Steve Jobs died. https://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-i... > How Elizabeth Holmes Became America's New Entrepreneurial Icon > She represents the part of entrepreneurship that…

"If you haven't yet heard of Elizabeth Holmes, you soon will."

And how!

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#749

Post by CapitalistCartr »

acegopher wrote: post #742
vasilipupkin wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

B.S. and fraud are two different things though. BS in the startup world is commonplace, but not fraud.

What's the difference? Aren't both knowingly lying to affect an outcome?

Fraud is lying to get money. If you lie to stroke your ego, or similar such behavior, it's not fraud, unless you gain wealth by it.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#750

Post by kingkawn »

atlantic wrote: post #667
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

Your argument is applicable to all white-collar crime. And it's emotionally-based, because she looks like one of us, not like a stereotypical thug. But in fact, she lied to take money from investors - theft on a grand scale - even if she wasn't wielding a sawn-off shotgun and wearing a ski mask. Edit: aside from that, I agree the potential sentence is very long, but that is characteristic of the US justice system, ri…

Lol stereotypical thug cmon man
Post reply on HN