Elizabeth Holmes found guilty • Hacker News Board

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#531

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 6:56 AM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #519

Shacklz wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, Theranos was outright, egregious fraud, and most startups that "collapse under the weight of unrealized promises" are not committing fraud. Most startups don't get the traction and publicity that Theranos got, however. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of founders would go to similar lengths given the chance; they just happen to have someone apply some reality check on them before things get out of hand.

That fruit juicer company over promised and under delivered, wasn't fraud tho.

Actually, Juicero over promised AND over delivered, just in the wrong way.

I saw tons of teardowns of their machine saying how over-engineered it was for something that squeezes a bag of precut fruits and veggies.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#532

Post by danjac » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 6:57 AM UTC

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 a bit like Al Capone being done for tax evasion rather than murder - you convict them on the charges that have the most evidence and are likely to stand up in court, even if they are lesser charges from a criminal and moral standpoint.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#533

Post by harha » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 6:59 AM UTC

amirkdv wrote: post #518

harha wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes me wonder how much of the rapidly established covid testing infrastructure around the world delivers actual results. Fun fact: In some places like Singapore you don't even get the chance to test again to verify the result, you just serve your time in quarantine and then get back your "safe" status.

Except for PCR has been around for decades and its basic principles are taught in first year molecular biology courses. Whereas Theranos' newfangled secret "innovation" was ... well, a secret throughout.

Yeah that was sketchy right from the pitch.

But even with the established PCR tests and with all the theatre around it, I doubt that this quantity of testing is being performed up to the highest standards and there are a bunch of "entrepreneurs" in this space too who may benefit from little supervision or consequences.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#534

Post by pcbro141 » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 6:59 AM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #177

paxys wrote: post #140

Guilty of taking a billion+ dollars from rich and influential people who couldn't bother to do the bare minimum due diligence into their investments due to greed and FOMO. Not guilty of endangering thousands of lives by running fraudulent and inaccurate tests under sub-par lab conditions. Our justice system is such a farce.

Our justice system works well. You are confusing your own emotional feelings for what you would have liked to see with the reality of what was able to be proven without reasonable doubt. The type of populist mob justice you allude* to is not just at all. *(Fixed grammar error specified below)

Our justice system is terrible. Look at the huge racist disparities like 5-10x rate of incarceration of Black people for weed, even though Whites use weed at similar rates. Then the for profit prisons, ridiculously high sentences, appalling prison conditions, and mass incarceration of 21% of the world's prison population.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#535

Post by khazhoux » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 6:59 AM UTC

manquer wrote: post #381

dboreham wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isnt it what startups do all the time ? All the time? No.

Is this pedantic correction as in you would not comment had I said "most" of the time or do you mean to imply it is rare/uncommon/ unusual for startups to do so ?

Startups do NOT regularly re-package other companies' deliverables as their own, and especially not to cover for the fact that they've promised the impossible.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#536

Post by hellbannedguy » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 7:08 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #323

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…

Those patients might have standing to file a civil class action suit against Holmes. Not sure if she has enough assets left to make that worthwhile.

No post body was provided.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#537

Post by nopenopenopeno » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 7:10 AM UTC

nroach wrote: post #528

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juries are not the brightest bunch. Anyone with even the most fleeting ability for critical thought can avoid jury duty. This is by design, of course.

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.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#538

Post by luckydata » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 7:10 AM UTC

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…

Agreed, but there's a non zero number of startups I had first hand experience with that I would define fraudulent without hesitation. They just didn't become as big or raised enough money to matter.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#539

Post by jkeat » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 7:11 AM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #495

sharkweek wrote: post #25

This will sound weird but I am a collector of swag from large companies that have collapsed due to anything from mismanagement to outright fraud. While we're a rare breed there are others like me out there. Still, even with this oddly specific marketplace being small, let me tell you, the Theranos swag market is hot right now (check eBay if you're curious). Wish I had gone big on this one earlier, because I have a fe…

I have a hat that says "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" from the very first taping (and only seven months before the last taping!).

Whoa nice, how’d you get that?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#540

Post by saurik » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 7:17 AM UTC

gkoberger wrote: post #511

jcranmer wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with everything you said, but I think the person you're replying to is less upset at the prosecutors/jury, and more upset about the laws in the first place. They protect the rich and powerful, and don't worry about the average person getting hurt.

I maybe agree that that's what that comment probably should have been focussed on, but they did explicitly cal out the "prosecutors" for having "fucked up" getting the conviction.