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

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#731

Post by bravo22 »

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?

Because she took things that she knew to be not true and said the they were true in order to get money.

She didn't say we hope to work with the US Army or that we plan to. She said that units were in use by them.

She didn't say the devices are on the verge of being used to analyze blood samples. She said that they were indeed being used to analyze a high percentage of the samples.

Many, many other examples.

That's the plain definition of fraud.

When the speaker implies uncertainty it is difficult for the investor to claim fraud because uncertainty was expressed to them. That the speaker "knows" the 95% figure is BS is very difficult to prove and generally everyone treats it as BS/puffing anyways.

If you could easily show that the CEO saying hitting the next milestone is 95% in the bag but in fact it is impossible AND they said so to others in private then that would also be prosecutable fraud.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#732

Post by rossdavidh »

alanh wrote: post #403
rossdavidh wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't really being charged with the stuff about patients, in part I think because the communication between Holmes and investors was direct, whereas Holmes was not personally communicating with the patients. Basically, the prosecutors went for the charges that were easier to prove. If Theranos still existed as a company, it would doubtless be getting buried under a blizzard of charges relating to how Theranos,…

> [She wasn’t] really being charged with [wire fraud with regard to] patients Unless the word "really" is doing some heavy lifting here, this is incorrect. There were multiple counts directly and specifically related to defrauding patients. These counts came back not guilty, but they were, in fact, charged, and customers testified in court in support of these charges.

You're correct, I saw that all of the counts were wire fraud or conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and didn't realize that they included wire fraud...of patients.

I have to think, though, that the fact that it was such an odd charge in relation to patients, had a part in why those charges didn't stick. I think wire fraud in relation to investors succeeded because it was a much more accurate description of the act involved. But you're correct, some of the counts that didn't stick were wire fraud related to patients.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#733

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

rsynnott wrote: post #679
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.

She'd want to get on with it; they're mostly fairly elderly. And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place.

> And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place.

That's obviously no longer a constraint. The optics of pardoning Anthony Lewandowski (among many, many others) looked awful and he was still pardoned.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#734

Post by xpe »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #300
petilon wrote: post #27

Some founders "fake it till you make it", and this news should serve as a cautionary tale.

"Fake it till you make it" originally meant behaving as an established company would, as opposed to presenting yourself as an upstart startup without a lot of customers. Basically: Professional website, formal company structure, normal business sales practices, having people available to answer the phones, and so on. You still had to do the work and deliver the results, but the goal was to overcome hesitancy to use s…

FITYMI can also be interpreted as presenting yourself (and company) with confidence that sometimes only more successful people (and companies) radiate. Like the comment above says, this does _not_ mean lying.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#735

Post by eternalban »

a-dub wrote: post #266
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 blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. my thoughts exactly. i'm woefully underread on the whole situation but something is weird and different about it. one thing that does jump to mind is that the investor list and board composition isn't what i'm used to seeing for stem ventures. i can imagine that perhaps they're less…

It’s the elephant in the room. Hardly ever remarked upon but a complete head scratcher. This company is fated to play a staring role in at least one conspiracy theory going forward.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#736

Post by vasilipupkin »

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.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#737

Post by ferdowsi »

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 is long-term dedication, when nobody's watching

>... That kind of walk-before-you-talk behavior is refreshing and respectable in today's hype-strewn entrepreneurial landscape.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#738

Post by dpierce9 »

snek_case wrote: post #725
ethbr0 wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst possible outcome of this, and I hope clarification presses this, would be "You can't lie and bend the truth in biology startups, but can everywhere else." Which would effectively siphon money away from an already hard but critical space. The jury found Holmes guilty. But she should have been found just as guilty if she'd been running an adtech startup or a crypto company.

I don't think it's just about biotech startups. I think the obvious distinction here is that her behavior put lives at risk fairly directly. Theranos was administering blood tests to a large number of people in a beta program. These tests were incomplete and inaccurate. Said tests were used to monitor the status/recurrence of cancers and other conditions like diabetes. If you similarly put people's lives or safety in…

“This case was specifically about what Holmes told Theranos investors, although her lies also impacted partners and patients.”

This had nothing to do with patients though I am sure the patient angle helped underscore the lies to investors.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#739

Post by wombat-man »

nikanj wrote: post #597
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Skilling of Enron fame got 24 years and was released after 12. That's because his original 24 year sentence was reduced to 14 after a Supreme Court case vacated part of his convictions. My bet, based on some calculators I've seen, is that Holmes serves (actually in jail) 14-18 years.

My bet, based on her net worth, is that she'll die of old age before the last round of appeals ends - and serve zero days before that.

I guess I understand the cynicism but her net worth appears to be not much. Usually you'd want to use your money to avoid getting convicted but here we are.

It's non-violent. Nobody died. I think 5-10 years. Maybe she can be Shkreli's pen pal.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#740

Post by merpnderp »

snek_case wrote: post #725
ethbr0 wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst possible outcome of this, and I hope clarification presses this, would be "You can't lie and bend the truth in biology startups, but can everywhere else." Which would effectively siphon money away from an already hard but critical space. The jury found Holmes guilty. But she should have been found just as guilty if she'd been running an adtech startup or a crypto company.

I don't think it's just about biotech startups. I think the obvious distinction here is that her behavior put lives at risk fairly directly. Theranos was administering blood tests to a large number of people in a beta program. These tests were incomplete and inaccurate. Said tests were used to monitor the status/recurrence of cancers and other conditions like diabetes. If you similarly put people's lives or safety in…

They weren't also testing these people with approved methods? Who would sign up for that and how is that legal or ethical? Even if she hadn't been lying these people were gambling their lives against the success of her company.
Post reply on HN