FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

I truly hope you don't ever plan to be in a court-room yourself at anytime, because your legal knowledge would see you serve a 20 year stretch for a parking ticket.

Informing Mclaren because the 'whistle-blower' was scared of going to the FIA does not make it the right way to go about things.

Ron Dennis did not follow the correct procedure, as Mclaren took information that it is illegal for them to have obtained in the manner in which they received it.

The notion that because a Ferrari employee did not follow correct procedures makes it legitimate merely underlines your lack of legal knowledge.

Information of any description relating to a design, whether that design is strictly kosher or has the intention of working around a regulation, has an intellectual copyright.

By giving Mclaren information about a Ferrari design, the 'whistle-blower' did not blow the whistle, he broke the rules regarding intellectual copyright.

By receiving informations on a competitors designs through an illegitimate channel, Mclaren are also guilty of breaking the same rules.

Hence, in case it escaped your knowledge, why the original FIA hearing found Mclaren of being guilty.

---

Tamburello

I don't want to keep protracting this out because it seems that you have a big problem with someone at Ferrari spilling the beans about a development that was contrary to the spirit of the rules but managed to get around the way it was tested. If the floor was perfectly legal and not an issue, would the FIA have changed the way it was tested to make it illegal? Of course not so lets not be coy about this. They were being naughty and got caught.

now, you can hate Stepney for informaing on them but they were in the wrong. perhaps not to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law and in FIA law, they amount to pretty much the same thing.

now, you like professing chapter and verse of law as many clever people do to avoid the basic facts and intention of a situation. not for the first time has a criminal got off because of a clever lawer and their interpretation of the Law ;)

so, the basic facts are that Ferrari were trying to bypass a regulation, Stepney informed McLaren who then informed the FIA keeping the whistle-blowers identity secret. the FIA agreed that Ferrari were trying to circumvent a testing procedure with an illegal floor and tightened up the testing process to ensure the floor was shown up as illegal from there on forcing Ferrari to comply with the regulations by changing the floor.

face it, your just p*ssed that they were caught out by one of their dissafected employees blowing their secret and are trying to justify it by some peverse legal arguement that he didn't go through the correct channels :laugh:

now, I'm not sure that this is what they were actually found guilty of but I suspect it wasn't from what Ive been told. I think they were found guilty because one of their employees had Ferrari IP in his possession that had been stolen by a Ferrari employee. The reason their was no sanction against McLaren was that the FIA accepted that the Ferrari and McLaren employee in question were acting on their own volition and not only were McLaren in no way benefitting from this document but were being screwed as much as Ferrari. after all, if mike was going to jump ship with Nigel, isn't it fair to say he proberly had a fair amount of McLaren IP as well ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why, I wonder, did Stepney think that the FIA would deal with the matter in such a way as to immediately implicate him with his employer?

---

Perhaps Stepney thought that it would have more merit coming publicly from another team, which would force FIA to react, who knows, he might have tried to get the information to FIA before but was ignored or told not to rock he boat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

face it, your just p*ssed that they were caught out by one of their dissafected employees blowing their secret and are trying to justify it by some peverse legal arguement that he didn't go through the correct channels :laugh:

---

It's not a perverse legal argument, it's the law.

The fact that you cannot understand that breaking the law is not a defence says more about your agenda than it says about my emotional state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The notion that because a Ferrari employee did not follow correct procedures makes it legitimate merely underlines your lack of legal knowledge.

Information of any description relating to a design, whether that design is strictly kosher or has the intention of working around a regulation, has an intellectual copyright.

By giving Mclaren information about a Ferrari design, the 'whistle-blower' did not blow the whistle, he broke the rules regarding intellectual copyright.

---

sorry to point out the bleeding obvious but as someone as learned as yourself in chapter and verse of the law, should we be discussing Intellectual Copyright or IP? ive never heard of a legal definition for Intellectual Copyright in the first instance and if you mean copyright, then it has a usual definition in Literature, arts etc. of course, Intellectual Property can consist of copyrighted works but it also entails non copyrighted documentation, process, thoughts, design etc that originate from a person or entity such as Ferrari.

I think even a learned gentlemen such as yourself would struggle to define Intellectual Copyright, let alone prove where its been transgressed.

Not getting picky or anything but your the one with Legal Definitions spouting from your backside :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

now, you like professing chapter and verse of law as many clever people do to avoid the basic facts and intention of a situation.

---

Nope, I'm pointing out to you the flaws in your argument, which is what any clever lawyer would do.

Or half-clever, in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

Perhaps Stepney thought that it would have more merit coming publicly from another team, which would force FIA to react...

---

I doubt that, because he would surely have known that doing it 'publicly' would not be possible, and maybe lead to something like this happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

...who knows, he might have tried to get the information to FIA before but was ignored or told not to rock he boat?

---

This was exactly what had crossed my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

It's not a perverse legal argument, it's the law.

The fact that you cannot understand that breaking the law is not a defence says more about your agenda than it says about my emotional state.

---

what agenda? :laugh:

your trying to twist and turn with legal arguements and definitions to discredit the whole chain of events because of one minute part in law and then are accusing me of having an agenda.

OK fella, tell me your version of the chain of events and being reasonable about it, where the fault lays. what did Dennis do that was morally wrong once he was made aware of the email from Stepney? did he, or did he not, go to the correct authorities and make them aware of the illegal floor once he had confirmed it was being used in Aus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

I think even a learned gentlemen such as yourself would struggle to define Intellectual Copyright, let alone prove where its been transgressed.

---

Intellectual copyright is not the same as intellectual property, besides which, details of a design are immediately owned by the company responsible for designing them.

Just a quick search on Google would inform you, but since I'm such a decent chap, here's one.....

http://www.buildingipvalue.com/n_ap/400_403.htm

As I understand it , Stepney was rather disaffected with Ferrari , but he now gets the benefit of the term "whistle-blower" .

A "whistle-blower" implies that his motive for his action was fairness and equity , in wanting to alert the authorities that the Ferrari bending the rules .

Since we know he was looking to other teams for employment , can the term be applied to Mr. Stepney at all , or was he just trying to screw with them before he left ? Was he looking to get fired , so he could leave ?
We know that the wing separator was brought into question as well , but given the ok .
Had the flex-floor been ok'ed as well , would there be any question as to Ferrari being a victim here ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why, I wonder, did Stepney think that the FIA would deal with the matter in such a way as to immediately implicate him with his employer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

A "whistle-blower" implies that his motive for his action was fairness and equity , in wanting to alert the authorities that the Ferrari bending the rules .

Since we know he was looking to other teams for employment , can the term be applied to Mr. Stepney at all , or was he just trying to screw with them before he left ? Was he looking to get fired , so he could leave ?

---

I think there are many questions like this relating to Stepney's situation at Ferrari that are yet to be answered, but that have a bearing on everything that is going on.