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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#751

Post by clessg »

pram wrote: post #748
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!

If you just stop reading right there, the article is perfectly cromulent!

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#752

Post by vasilipupkin »

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?

B.S. is in the eye of the beholder. I can start a company and ask you to invest in it because it will be worth 3 trillion in 20 years. It may be BS in your eyes, but I might believe there is a real chance of success. Fraud is different, fraud is blatantly concealing or misprepresenting certain facts.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#753

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

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…

Gell-Man Amnesia Effect in full effect. Will we remember when we read the next PR piece/pump and dump disguised as journalism?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#754

Post by Pxtl »

jcranmer wrote: post #328
jonwachob91 wrote: post #40

It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. Investors know that every dollar they put into a company could disappear, it's why startups get capital from investors and not bank loans. But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong. Her tests weren't giving false-negatives or false-positives, the…

It's not particularly surprising, if you assume that the jury was essentially looking for a specific, traceable line between representations from Elizabeth Holmes herself (and nobody else) and the subsequent payment as a necessary element of fraud. (Whether or not the jury was doing so could be guessed from reading the jury instructions, which I haven't done). Being found guilty of defrauding investors in that light…

From what I've read, patients were prevented from testifying about the impact of the damage caused by the incorrect test results. That means life-changing pain and suffering was concealed from the jury.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#755

Post by seanw444 »

emptyfile wrote: post #716
simonsarris wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being wrong about a prediction, even being very wrong, is not the same as lying or defrauding. By 2019 pretty much everyone knows that Musk is a person who makes extremely ambitious predictions, projections, timelines, etc, and tries to meet them. Almost anyone in that situation will have a low hit rate. There's no sin to pay for, this is how he chooses to work and structure his businesses. Investors tend to be very…

What about making a prediction while being, as you're saying it, 95% sure its bullshit? Is that not lying? When does it become lying, when you're 100% sure you're not saying the truth?

Seems very presumptuous to assume Musk knows that he won't hit his goals. Most people make goals to try to hit them. He probably was bent on achieving that, and hit a snag.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#756

Post by jasode »

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…

>Considering that BS, stretching of capabilities, and so on are commonplace in the startup world, the point isn't whether Holmes crossed the line (she did), but rather, how exactly that line is repositioned by this precedent.

I really don't see the line being repositioned at all because typical founder bs and Holme's fraud have a clear difference:

- bs is often overinflated promises of the _future_ that don't come true ; E.g. Musk overpromises fully-self-driving cars next year blah blah blah

- fraud is often lying about the _past_ with falsified documents etc. E.g. Holmes deliberately fabricated "military contracts" that didn't exist and forged papers with supposed Pfizer endorsements to trick investors to wire money. Likewise, Madoff faked the so-called fund's audited statements showing profitable trades. Therefore, convictions of wire fraud charges are easier to prosecute.

Holme's guilty convictions really have no relevance to the pie-in-the-sky overconfidence of founders. Therefore, unrealistic projections will continue to be made.

Is there any credible evidence showing Elon Musk falsified documents and fabricated income to trick investors into SpaceX/Tesla?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#757

Post by whoisstan »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #492
seehafer wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Argh! The linked NPR article on that tweet had me yelling at my phone: > It is unusual for tech executives to face criminal changes when their startups collapse under the weight of unrealized promises. That's because it's not illegal to over promise about your future results. It is illegal to lie about simple facts regarding the present state of your business to attract funding. I'm so sick of so many press outlets f…

Wasn't her and the companies case that they knew what they wanted to achieve, wearing the bandaid that communicates with the phone to the server was impossible and that its various simpler versions of devices did produce results that did knowingly mislead people about their health. That's is potentially life threatening and different from an i.e. chat AI company that blatantly lies, this may lead to some peoples misery as well, but Theranos had way less network hops leading to health threatening outcomes.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#758

Post by lbriner »

sundvor wrote: post #442
jonwachob91 wrote: post #40

It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. Investors know that every dollar they put into a company could disappear, it's why startups get capital from investors and not bank loans. But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong. Her tests weren't giving false-negatives or false-positives, the…

Well, they got Al Capone on tax evasion... In my own mind, the test result fraud is far worse ethically - however as long as she is locked up, it still works.

This wouldn't be satisfying. It is hard to accept that one person was responsible for all of the dishonesty. Even if you were "only" the CFO or COO, you must know what is happening in the company. What about all of the scientists who must have knowingly been reporting results that were not consistent with best (or legal) practice?

There is obviously a culture issue with "white collar" crime and a large hole in most countries ability to correctly police what is and isn't acceptable. There are also questions around "business secrets" and how these were used to justify a lack of scrutiny or due-diligence.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#759

Post by lbriner »

dmix wrote: post #211
jonwachob91 wrote: post #40

It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. Investors know that every dollar they put into a company could disappear, it's why startups get capital from investors and not bank loans. But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong. Her tests weren't giving false-negatives or false-positives, the…

They farmed out the patient results to real machines pretending they were using Theranos. So they were technically real.

As other posters have commented, since they were claiming results from much smaller samples, these "good" machines weren't given the amount of blood required for reliable results so this is also fraudulent and much worse imho because the people operating these machines must have know they were artifically amplifying samples.
Post reply on HN