Theranos' Death Rattle

[closetojumping 62790]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can say he should, in some cosmic sense, be in jail and I might actually agree.  But to think that he could actually be prosecuted or disbarred for what he did reveals ignorance.

It's not practical to make a lawyer liable for the subjective state of mind of their client.  If the client has a plausible cause of action, the lawyer is free, under law and legal ethics, to pursue it.  That's not to say the lawyer should, but there won't be legal ramifications in most cases if s/he does.

That's like saying a lawyer should only take and file winning cases.

It's pretty clear to me from the audio clips of Boies arguing with Carreyrou or the WSJ lawyers, that he believed in his client's position. He shouldn't have, but he did and in any event isn't required to do a deep dive on his client's subjective state of mind as long as they have a plausible claim.

And yes I did read the book.  I've been following this closely for a long time.

It was an inevitability that you’d eventually declare my ignorance in this discussion. It was a given to me before I chose to engage. That considered, you’re still full of shit in your position.  No one has stipulated that Boies should have read his client’s mind or state of mind. He didn’t need to do that or fail to do that in order to break the law regarding harrassment and blackmail, which you’re either couching as his client’s bidding or choosing to ignore altogether. You’re wrong either way. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

8 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

It was an inevitability that you’d eventually declare my ignorance in this discussion. It was a given to me before I chose to engage. That considered, you’re still full of shit in your position.  No one has stipulated that Boies should have read his client’s mind or state of mind. He didn’t need to do that or fail to do that in order to break the law regarding harrassment and blackmail, which you’re either couching as his client’s bidding or choosing to ignore altogether. You’re wrong either way. 

I officially disengage.  You are now out of your depth.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Following up on something.  At 1:42 on the HBO doc, Shultz states that once the WSJ article broke, Theranos quit bothering him.  He said "we didn't go to court." I took that to mean they had filed suit but never went to trial or had any hearings.  Prior to that, I was of the understanding that they didn't sue him.  It appears that they didn't, and his definition of "go to court" means file suit.

I accept that he spent $400k defending himself, but that is completely ludicrous, I don't care what Theranos/Boies was doing.  He got horsefucked by his lawyers.

And let me clarify something.  The only way Boies becomes liable, civilly, criminally, or professionally (the bar) for pursuing Theranos' bullshit objectives was that he flat-out, unquestionably knew that Theranos' objectives were fraudulent and bullshit, and not just obnoxious, aggressive, paranoid behaviors.

That is not the same thing as saying that his behavior was morally justified.  But it's legal.

Edited March 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[closetojumping 62790]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I officially disengage.  You are now out of your depth.

I don’t know, man, I think you’re getting somewhere. Maybe if you could just equivocate one more time around how Boies needed to do a bunch of dishonest, evil shit that he knew would go nowhere and do nothing but create harm for his targets, maybe then it will sink in with me that he did nothing wrong. 

[gsoda3 3281]

2 hours ago, closetojumping said:

So you still haven’t read the book, then. I understand the concept you’re belaboring, but maybe if you pontificate on it for another 10-15 posts we’ll all really, really understand it. 

i read the book.  carreyrou is obviously disgusted by boies and his strong arming tactics but laid out nothing he did that was illegal. 

[closetojumping 62790]

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

i read the book.  carreyrou is obviously disgusted by boies and his strong arming tactics but laid out nothing he did that was illegal. 

He never laid anything out at all regarding the subject, as far as I recall. He didn’t give many actual opinions on anything. He did a great job though. 

[Beau Vine 54388]

So Michael Avenetti apparently crossed the line TwiceHorn thinks exists between zealous representation and sleaziness.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

So Michael Avenetti apparently crossed the line TwiceHorn thinks exists between zealous representation and sleaziness.

Not sleaziness. At all timea in this little debate, I have been talking about legal ethics (what gets you disbarred) and what gets you sued for malpractice or wrongful prosecution, and criminal liability.

The difference is that Avenatti not only pursued a cash payment on behalf of a client (legit, unless he knows for an absolute fact that the client has no claim), but also a giant payment for himself, premised solely on not revealing disparaging information, not on a lawful exercise of the client's rights by filing suit and publicizing that, or whatever publicity comes out of the suit and discovery, etc.
 

In contrast, Boies was always operating on behalf of Theranos, who always had some at least facially plausible trade secrets claim against Shultz and Cheung.  His tactics were overbearing, disgusting, even sleazy, but very highly unlikely to get him in any kind of professional, civil, or criminal trouble.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

On 3/24/2019 at 1:33 PM, closetojumping said:

I don’t know, man, I think you’re getting somewhere. Maybe if you could just equivocate one more time around how Boies needed to do a bunch of dishonest, evil shit that he knew would go nowhere and do nothing but create harm for his targets, maybe then it will sink in with me that he did nothing wrong. 

I have never once said he didn't do anything "wrong," for fucks sake.  I said didn't do anything that will get him in any kind of legal trouble.  He's not being prosecuted because there's nothing to prosecute him for, at least on the record we have.

Being a general purpose shitheel is not illegal in the US of A.  See, e.g. Washington, DC.

Twice, at least, on this thread, before the legal ethics question came up, I expressed disapproval of Boies' tactics.  Once back in June before I read the book, and earlier this month after having read the book.

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

I thought it was common knowledge that David Boies is a dick. He's not going to get in any legal or ethical trouble for Theranos, but I do support CTJ's position that he burn in hell. 

[Deej 76901]

What trade secrets did they really have? Their product was almost vaporware. They were using other manufacturers equipment to perform the tests. Seems that was the only secret Boies was trying to protect.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Just now, Hank Scorpio said:

I thought it was common knowledge that David Boies is a dick. He's not going to get in any legal or ethical trouble for Theranos, but I do support CTJ's position that he burn in hell. 

Probably my position also.

 

[closetojumping 62790]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I have never once said he didn't do anything "wrong," for fucks sake.  I said didn't do anything that will get him in any kind of legal trouble.  He's not being prosecuted because there's nothing to prosecute him for, at least on the record we have.

It may surprise you to learn this, but there's a shit ton of shitty behavior that isn't illegal.

In your blind desire to shout louder than everyone else, you lost the ability to possibly hear what anyone else was saying. Your entire stance presumes inherently that you're better informed than the rest of us and have a better understanding of any possible argument to come from this discussion. Then you simultaneously adhere to the posture that we know all of the facts, and that the legal system is only acting on logic and a full awareness of all of the facts. You're doing this without a hint of irony. 

It may surprise you to learn this, but the legal system is a chaotic structure that involves people making decisions based off of emotion and then rationalizing those decisions with whatever logic they can find to support their position. Lawyers commonly hide behind the concept that they're level-headed rhetoricians thinking and acting more logically than their clients, and it's your MO on this board, so I realize that that may sound implausible to you, so be it.

The premise that Boies has walked away cleanly because the facts don't support pursuing him might be right. I don't know what investigators looking at everything know, so sure, it might just be good lawyering. However, the reality that this guy wouldn't be worth the trouble for most prosecutors to pursue is plenty believable to anyone not absolutely unwilling to consider the notion due to the preconceived view that Super Lawyer would be above such matters. You've concluded that there's no way Boies could have done as much since you put him on a pedestal entering the discussion; can see inside his mind; and know what he knew, when he knew it; and then ignore the reality that lawsuits were never fucking brought against anyone he was tormenting but for the original group he was hired to pursue in the first place.

 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Just now, Deej said:

What trade secrets did they really have? Their product was almost vaporware. They were using other manufacturers equipment to perform the tests. Seems that was the only secret Boies was trying to protect.

Trade secrets can be any damn thing.  From the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which is adopted in 49 states and DC:

Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and

(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

5 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

In your blind desire to shout louder than everyone else, you lost the ability to possibly hear what anyone else was saying. Your entire stance presumes inherently that you're better informed than the rest of us and have a better understanding of any possible argument to come from this discussion. Then you simultaneously adhere to the posture that we know all of the facts, and that the legal system is only acting on logic and a full awareness of all of the facts. You're doing this without a hint of irony. 

It may surprise you to learn this, but the legal system is a chaotic structure that involves people making decisions based off of emotion and then rationalizing those decisions with whatever logic they can find to support their position. Lawyers commonly hide behind the concept that they're level-headed rhetoricians thinking and acting more logically than their clients, and it's your MO on this board, so I realize that that may sound implausible to you, so be it.

The premise that Boies has walked away cleanly because the facts don't support pursuing him might be right. I don't know what investigators looking at everything know, so sure, it might just be good lawyering. However, the reality that this guy wouldn't be worth the trouble for most prosecutors to pursue is plenty believable to anyone not absolutely unwilling to consider the notion due to the preconceived view that Super Lawyer would be above such matters. You've concluded that there's no way Boies could have done as much since you put him on a pedestal entering the discussion; can see inside his mind; and know what he knew, when he knew it; and then ignore the reality that lawsuits were never fucking brought against anyone he was tormenting but for the original group he was hired to pursue in the first place.

 

This is utter bullshit.

I explained how legal ethics work in response to a question.  I know what I'm talking about.  You don't.

You completely mischaracterized what I said as a defense of Boies, when I am on record that I disapprove of what he did.

Fin.

Edited March 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Deej 76901]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trade secrets can be any damn thing.  From the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which is adopted in 49 states and DC:

Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and

(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

 

 

Yeah, but it sure seemed like they were just trying to hide lies. 

[Chewbacca 7782]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is utter bullshit.

I explained how legal ethics work.  I know what I'm talking about.  You don't.

Fin.

If what Boies did was within legal ethics, you guys need better ethics.  

[Parliament 14287]

What trade secrets did they really have? Their product was almost vaporware. They were using other manufacturers equipment to perform the tests. Seems that was the only secret Boies was trying to protect.

.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

15 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

If what Boies did was within legal ethics, you guys need better ethics.  

As with all ethics, they are lowest common denominator, the minimum acceptable behavior.  The vast majority wouldn't go that far.

On the other hand, if you have ever wanted a "bulldog" lawyer, you have wanted someone more like Boies in Theranos than the vast majority.

[Chewbacca 7782]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As with all ethics, they are lowest common denominator, the minimum acceptable behavior.  The vast majority wouldn't go that far.

On the other hand, if you have ever wanted a "bulldog" lawyer, you have wanted someone more like Boies in Theranos than the vast majority.

I've been on the receiving end of a bulldog lawyer (personally, where i had to pay out of pocket to defend myself).  Lawyers need better ethics.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

32 minutes ago, Deej said:

Yeah, but it sure seemed like they were just trying to hide lies. 

Well, as discussed above, a functioning Edison machine would require a shitload of "working parts."  Any development in any of those "working parts" (literally meaning working parts, as well as software, sensors, designs, concepts, things that didn't work, and so on and so forth) could constitute a trade secret if maintained in secrecy.  Theranos apparently would have no trouble with the secrecy part.  Even without a working machine, they did employ some smart people from time to time and I'm sure they would have had dozens of legitimate trade secrets.

A pretty fair amount of trade secret litigation goes on over customer lists in big-ticket sales environments.

Edited March 25, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Deej 76901]

Didn't Boies answer the question about whether they were using other machines for blood tests, in the interview with the book's author, with, "Those are trade secrets." Seems like he was playing cover-up.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

5 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I've been on the receiving end of a bulldog lawyer (personally, where i had to pay out of pocket to defend myself).  Lawyers need better ethics.

I don't like it.  I'm proud to say I'm not a "bulldog" lawyer, but a lot of jackasses think that's what they want.  Sometimes it works out for them.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

2 minutes ago, Deej said:

Didn't Boies answer the question about whether they were using other machines for blood tests, in the interview with the book's author, with, "Those are trade secrets." Seems like he was playing cover-up.

Could well be, I don't recall it specifically.  But, I will say this.  In an adversarial situation, if someone starts asking questions about a client's internal operating procedures or for  information about their centerpiece technology, they are going to meet resistance from the client's lawyers, as they probably should.  In hindsight, it looks pretty bad.

Example:  How does the Edison machine work?  Fuck off.  What's the error rate on Edison?  Fuck off.  It doesn't work that well does it?  Fuck off.  Does it do half the tests you claim?  Fuck off. It doesn't work at all does it?  Fuck off.

You see how the questions go from clearly objectionable as trade secret to looking more like hiding something.

[Beau Vine 54388]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trade secrets can be any damn thing.  From the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which is adopted in 49 states and DC:

Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and

(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

 

 

So (i) obviously doesn't apply to Theranos, since they had bupkis.  And like Deej says below, does (ii) really apply if the only thing they're trying to maintain secrecy of is massive fraud? 

From what I remember about contract law, a contract is void if it's for an illegal purpose.  Would a non-disclosure contract that prevents a party from talking about all the fraud being committed be void?  If not, why wouldn't it? 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

44 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

So (i) obviously doesn't apply to Theranos, since they had bupkis.  And like Deej says below, does (ii) really apply if the only thing they're trying to maintain secrecy of is massive fraud? 

From what I remember about contract law, a contract is void if it's for an illegal purpose.  Would a non-disclosure contract that prevents a party from talking about all the fraud being committed be void?  If not, why wouldn't it? 

See my earlier post.  The "trade secret" would not be a functioning Edison machine, which, we'll say is made up of 1000 things.  Lets say 650 of them worked, but the other 350 were a fail, so far.  And that's in just one design.  Maybe they had another where 550 different things worked, but 450 of them didn't.  And the 650 and 550 working things don't overlap.  So the knowledge comprising those working things makes 1200 trade secrets.

Oversimplification, but just because they don't have a functioning Edison machine doesn't mean they didn't accumulate trade secrets along the way.  Sometimes, a really valuable trade secret or series of them is knowing what NOT to do.  As in, for some reason, you can't make fetzer valves out of polycarbonate because they always fail at 300 hours. 

And from a lawyer's standpoint, if someone wants to know which 550 things worked and which 450 things didn't, that in itself is a trade secret or at least confidential and if someone asks, you are going to tell them to sign an NDA to get that information, or, more likely, fuck off.

The line between protecting Theranos' trade secrets, particularly when the CEO is a paranoid loon that insists on treating everything as secret, and hiding the truth about misrepresentations can be rather fine. For one thing, the lawyer may be ignorant of exactly what the client is claiming to the FDA or third parties.

I'm not really troubled by the tactics with the WSJ.  Do you really expect your lawyer, when the WSJ is threatening to write a tell-all to just come clean and say, "ok, yeah, you got us."  Hell, no, you expect them to generate whatever reasons, bullshit or not, for WSJ not to go to press with the story.

The treatment of little people like Cheung and Shultz was despicable, though.

An NDA pretty obviously isn't going to say "when you're employed here, you're going to learn about our fraudulent practices, so here is an NDA forbidding you from talking about them."

It's going to say "You learned of trade secrets pertaining to blood testing machines and related technology and confidential information about the company,, etc. and you hereby covenant and agree not to disclose that information."

If you have a departing employee that you have learned is talking to a competitor, or the WSJ, about your machines, you might freak the fuck out, even if you had nothing to hide.  When the CEO knows you do have something to hide, but the lawyer doesn't, everything seems reasonable.  So, you contact the ex-employee, remind them of their obligations, maybe send them a copy of their NDA and say you're going to sue the fuck out of him if he reveals the trade secrets.  All totally normal at this point.  And you have to understand that in the realm of trade secrets, once they're out, they're out, you can't put the genie back in the bottle real easily.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Also, when and whether to sue the ex-employee can be a tricky question.  For one thing, you probably don't know when they are talking to the competitor or the WSJ.  And you can only speculate as to whether they are actually revealing trade secrets.  Litigation could result in a declaration that you have no trade secrets, so you don't necessarily just want to haul off and file on suspicion alone.  Do it too early and maybe the employee can prove that he hasn't revealed trade secrets, at that time.  So you lose, and the employee goes to China and tells all.

So, if you are trying to get an ex-employee not to steal your trade secrets, one of the best ways to do it is to scare him away from any opportunity to do so.  Waiting until he's done it and suing him after the fact may be a mere bandaid.

From what we've read and heard it appears that Boies took the pursuit of Shultz and Cheung to grotesque extremes.  Still find it unfathomable that Shultz spent $400k outside a lawsuit.  That's a decent litigation budget even in NorCal.  Hell, he might have been able to shut them the fuck up with a $50k declaratory judgment (you won't sue me, fine, I will make you by suing you), which would cost maybe $20k in Texas.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Finally, we all tend to assume that Boies knew that the real motive was to keep Shultz and Cheung from revealing what a fail was Theranos.

And maybe he did.

But a whole lot of other old white men were fooled too.  It all boggles the mind.

[Deej 76901]

Guy was a board member, a stockholder, and their lawyer. You would think he would be up to date on what was going on. If he wasn't, then he wasn't doing his due diligence. Seems to me he had a conflict of interest, and was looking out for his bank account. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

11 minutes ago, Deej said:

Guy was a board member, a stockholder, and their lawyer. You would think he would be up to date on what was going on. If he wasn't, then he wasn't doing his due diligence. Seems to me he had a conflict of interest, and was looking out for his bank account. 

Not to defend him but to put a realistic spin on it:  George Shultz was everything but their lawyer and didn't believe his own grandson. 

Board member and stockholder doesn't really mean shit.  Every single one of them apparently had no idea wtf was going on.

Also, a guy like Boies is a mouthpiece.  At this stage in his career, he doesn't get down in the nitty-gritty, he lets junior lawyers do that and he just hovers above it all, gets the information he needs to be a mouthpiece, handle a hearing, or try a case.  It would be erroneous to assume that he knew everything about the company.  He might have, he probably didn't.

A scenario I can easily see is this.  Holmes is telling everybody that they're close, not quite there, but close.  WSJ is going to publish an article saying what a POS Edison is.  She tells everyone, but we're trying so hard!  We're so close!  Its so important!  Everyone's like oh, ok, well fuck the WSJ.  That seems to have been something of a pattern at Theranos and it worked for a long, long time.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Deej 76901]

Guy seems like a real POS. 

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/david-boiess-fall-from-grace/

[TwiceHorn 31533]

The issue isn't whether he's a POS.  That much seems to have been established. 

The questions we're discussing are how legal ethics and a trade secret case work.

[Beau Vine 54388]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

1.  An NDA pretty obviously isn't going to say "when you're employed here, you're going to learn about our fraudulent practices, so here is an NDA forbidding you from talking about them."

2.  It's going to say "You learned of trade secrets pertaining to blood testing machines and related technology and confidential information about the company,, etc. and you hereby covenant and agree not to disclose that information."

1.  No shit.

2.  My question is, What if the only trade secret they learned is that nothing works and that the whole organization is a massive fraud?  That shouldn't be covered by the "trade secret" provision and that NDA doesn't seem like it should be enforceable.  

[Chewbacca 7782]

Guy seems like a real POS. 
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/david-boiess-fall-from-grace/

I'll wait for Twice to tell me what i should think.

[Beau Vine 54388]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, a guy like Boies is a mouthpiece.  At this stage in his career, he doesn't get down in the nitty-gritty, he lets junior lawyers do that and he just hovers above it all, gets the information he needs to be a mouthpiece, handle a hearing, or try a case.  It would be erroneous to assume that he knew everything about the company.  He might have, he probably didn't.

 

I guess that's one of my problems with the legal profession.  For the money they get paid, especially a guy like Boies, I think they should have a legal duty to be more than a mouthpiece.  

There should be some sort of sanction for publicly misrepresenting the truth.  (And this is where you get back to your "zealously defend" argument.  I realize that, but I don't think "zealously" should encompass outright lying, err, I mean "misrepresenting the truth.")

[Nivek 16982]

As with all ethics, they are lowest common denominator, the minimum acceptable behavior.  The vast majority wouldn't go that far.
On the other hand, if you have ever wanted a "bulldog" lawyer, you have wanted someone more like Boies in Theranos than the vast majority.

Try estate disputes. Their goal is to represent their client, but their practice is to bleed the money.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

I'm starting to think people might not like lawyers all that much. 

[Deej 76901]

Just watched the doc again

Carreyrou: "How can it fall under the bucket on new technology if these aren't even Theranos machines?"

Boies: "You don't need to know how they do it."

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

20 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

1.  No shit.

2.  My question is, What if the only trade secret they learned is that nothing works and that the whole organization is a massive fraud?  That shouldn't be covered by the "trade secret" provision and that NDA doesn't seem like it should be enforceable.  

Not a realistic scenario.  They had real trade secrets.  They had real engineers and biotech people working on aspects of Edison and its just not possible that they didn't learn some things that qualified as trade secrets.  Plus, there are other things that could be trade secrets: the aforementioned customer lists, pricing structures, vendor identities and terms, software, it goes on and on.

And, as far as an NDA goes, the functional status of a project can be considered at least confidential, if not a trade secret (if a competitor knew if or when a product might come to market, that might be hugely valuable).

I have spoken mostly in terms of trade secrets, but an NDA validly applies to just confidential information, too.

If in fact there was nothing at all that qualified as a trade secret, then an NDA might be void against public policy.  And, at some point, the public interest in information covered by an NDA might rise to the level that the NDA is unenforceable as to that particular information.

Part of the problem with all this is that we're now working with complete information.  Everyone now knows Theranos was a fraud.  But no one except Holmes and Balwani knew that for a pretty  long time.

[gsoda3 3281]

don't forget they were actually using later model edisons to run samples in real life that people paid for.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

52 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I guess that's one of my problems with the legal profession.  For the money they get paid, especially a guy like Boies, I think they should have a legal duty to be more than a mouthpiece.  

There should be some sort of sanction for publicly misrepresenting the truth.  (And this is where you get back to your "zealously defend" argument.  I realize that, but I don't think "zealously" should encompass outright lying, err, I mean "misrepresenting the truth.")

The lawyer's first duty is to the client, not to the public.  The attorney client privilege means an attorney is actually forbidden from revealing the truth communicated by his client.

There is a crime/fraud exception to the privilege, but that doesn't create a duty to disclose, only relieves the lawyer of sanctions for disclosing.  It's hazardous for a lawyer to make his own call (as opposed to being ordered by a judge) to disclose information otherwise privileged because the lawyer thinks its in furtherance of a crime or fraud.  If he's wrong, he'll be sued into Bolivia and could lose his law license.

Also, important note:  crime/fraud exception only applies to communications in furtherance of an ongoing fraud or crime.  Not to a past one, or one that hasn't or may not happen.

I am not aware of any instance in the Theranos debacle where Boies "publicly misrepresented the truth."  That might actually be sanctionable.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Auto Driller 2506]

5 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

don't forget they were actually using later model edisons to run samples in real life that people paid for.

If you read the book, this is actually by far the worst part.

The machines were so inaccurate that they would run the test 5 times and take the median result and report it. They regularly ended up with findings that would indicate that the patient should be dead (potassium level in blood 10x above the lethal level, for instance).

Everyone with even a basic level of understanding of the company knew how fucked up it was and that people were in real danger.

[Chewbacca 7782]

don't forget they were actually using later model edisons to run samples in real life that people paid for.

They weren't working properly.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

4 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

If you read the book, this is actually by far the worst part.

The machines were so inaccurate that they would run the test 5 times and take the median result and report it. They regularly ended up with findings that would indicate that the patient should be dead (potassium level in blood 10x above the lethal level, for instance).

Everyone with even a basic level of understanding of the company knew how fucked up it was and that people were in real danger.

Guess we should start rounding up "everyone" then and throwing them in jail.

Another thing is that Theranos/Edison was just a failed product from a privately held company.  it became a fraud when Holmes et al represented certain things to the FDA and to certain investors and customers (and in turn the patients).  This was not a publicly traded company where there was any general duty of truthful disclosure to the public.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

50 minutes ago, Deej said:

Just watched the doc again

Carreyrou: "How can it fall under the bucket on new technology if these aren't even Theranos machines?"

Boies: "You don't need to know how they do it."

 

 

Does anyone really expect any lawyer, representing a technology company with a so-called miracle device, to give any other answer to a nosy reporter?  I mean, really?  Seriously?

 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Try estate disputes. Their goal is to represent their client, but their practice is to bleed the money.

That's  true in any matter.  There's an inherent conflict between any service provider and their client.

[MAUFRAIS 6633]

Carreyou looked liked Henry hill when he was seeing helicopters or someone in a NyQuil ad.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13522]

Should have been an extremely red flag to any investor that a company appears to exist solely on investor funds for 10+ years. It’s one thing to burn thru your raised capital once or twice but going back for new funding again and again for over a decade is basically just a Ponzi scheme.

Im sure other failed companies and their founders are just as unethical in terms of raising money for losing companies but they’re ultimately smart about getting out before it becomes overtly criminal. “We tried, we failed, thanks for paying”

 

[bluto 4942]

They did have rev from Walgreens and Safeway though right?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13522]

1 minute ago, bluto said:

They did have rev from Walgreens and Safeway though right?

I don’t know. Appears they had some revenue thru them but didn’t Walgreens also invest in them? Did Walgreens just see nothing but FOMO?