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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#771

Post by deegles »

lbriner wrote: post #746
nathanyz wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 busines…

Also, that statement doesn’t say it will transform it in a good way :)

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#772

Post by bumby »

jasode wrote: post #756
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 tr…

Maybe someone with a legal background can weigh in more intelligently, but skimming through the US Code that she was actually convicted of doesn't make any distinction between past and future. Most of it is centered around claims of material fact (i.e., not subjective) and intentional and realized damage.

I think some of the grey area with Musk is the marketing of the product, like terming it "autopilot" which has a very specific connotation in the public perception. I'm granting that's not fraud in the same sense as the Theranos case, but I think it (probably deliberately) walks into a grey area of ethics. I think the damage claim is readily apparent but the intentional claim may be more difficult, in part because I don’t think there is a standardized definition of “autopilot”, even if it knowingly means something specific to the general public.

If I create an EV model named the "ThousandMiler" but put an asterisk in the manual that says it's only capable of 500 miles, maybe that's not fraud but it's skirting the line.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#773

Post by bigbillheck »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #537
nroach wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people choose to serve on juries out of a sense of civic responsibility and don’t seek exclusion.

Why would I believe that happens to any measurable extent? I mean, sounds nice but it also sounds like a fairy tale.

A couple years ago the only reason I wasn't on a jury was because I wasn't one of the people whose name was randomly drawn, after they'd filtered out everybody who was unable to serve or had other conflicts that would make them unfit (such as 'visceral opinions about the nature of the charges').

Could I have gotten out of it? Sure. Could I have gotten out of it without lying under oath? I don't see how.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#774

Post by schnitzelstoat »

bumby wrote: post #767
geophile wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I haven't read Carreyrou's book, but do you think age and stereotypical gender roles played a part in the swindle? In other words, did the "old powerful men" let their guard down more because she was a young female?

Carreyrou's book is really good and I strongly recommend it - it's made clear in the book that a lot of them had family friendship connections to Holmes as well.

I imagine this may also have clouded their judgement.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#775

Post by johnebgd »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #753
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?

No one in the media seems to still question if cryptocurrencies are serious investment assets despite little actual proven utility beyond being a speculative investment asset.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#776

Post by tasha0663 »

runeks wrote: post #544
droidno9 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to attract to the company. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these people still have an affinity for her and, at the right time, throw some good words in the President's ears on her behalf.

This disgusts me. The president should not have the power to free anyone from prison. If the laws are broken then (attempt to) change those, but otherwise you’re just saying “yeah, you’re guilty, but I like you so you don’t need to serve your time like everyone else”.

Checks and balances. The President doesn't make the laws, but (s)he executes the laws. If you strip away pardon power, there ain't much left.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#777

Post by ch4s3 »

potta_coffee wrote: post #761
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I remember thinking that all the hype about her was somewhat over the top.

I was going through a health tech startup incubator at the time, and it became a bit of a meme where we'd poke fun at anyone who bought into Theranos. Some went as far as putting together a slide deck to debunk the claims about running labs on such tiny volumes of blood. This was when and where I learned about the heterogeneity of blood.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#778

Post by kingkawn »

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…

If protection of patient health was a critical component of the US healthcare system we would have a public option. We don't, so we don't. The only thing that is protected in the US is money.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#779

Post by engineeringwoke »

lbriner wrote: post #746
nathanyz wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 busines…

It's not a grey area. It's simply not enforced. If you're an investor and you find out that the co-founders gave you bad numbers to juice the next round (this is common to the extent that I have personally seen it multiple times), you have no incentive to get the law involved. You would lose your entire investment, instead of just some of it.

And oftentimes, the extra juice gives them enough runway to make things work. Cheaters win, that's the way it is.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#780

Post by wiz21c »

jasode wrote: post #756
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 tr…

> pie-in-the-sky overconfidence of founders

I always wonder do they really are overconfident, or are they so because somehow they think they would miss opportunities if they are less overconfident than their competitors ?

It sounds much like advertising always selling you things using very ambiguous wording in order to make you dream. For me that's just lying.

Post reply on HN