FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

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?

---

Re-read my posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

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.

---

No it doesn't, hence the reason why no disqualification was imposed on Ferrari in Melbourne.

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.

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

---

Please also read this.......

http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ipr/Intel...rty.htm#Primer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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

---

I say it again. There is no such thing as Intellectual Copyright

your basing your arguement on something that has no legal definition or basis in Law

you quote some article on New Zealand law to back up your arguement that does nothing of the such.

Now, sorry to keep pointing this out but you are getting a bit anal about this old boy. as you say, I know very little about the law but what I do know is that you cant just make up legal terms to suit your arguement.

Intellectual Copyright doesn't exist as a term or a legal president. Copyright does but it is not strictly relevant to your arguement as it's pretty unlikely that the information would be subject to copyright anyway unless it was due for publication. were Ferrari planning on publishing it?

However, it was Intellectual Property, which is a valid, legal and recognised term. may I suggest you use that in future :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

However, it was Intellectual Property, which is a valid, legal and recognised term. may I suggest you use that in future :p :

---

Certainly.

Not sure how that helps your argument though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Please also read this.......

http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ipr/Intel...rty.htm#Primer

---

may I suggest you do the same. not just the first few lines but a little further as to what is covered.

it blows you out of the water. there is no such thing as Intellectual Copyright but Copyright does not sufficiently cover the information whereas it says that copyright makes up an important componant of IP.

your swimming upstream fella and theres no mating ground at the top :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

may I suggest you do the same. not just the first few lines but a little further as to what is covered.

it blows you out of the water. there is no such thing as Intellectual Copyright but Copyright does not sufficiently cover the information whereas it says that copyright makes up an important componant of IP.

your swimming upstream fella and theres no mating ground at the top :D

---

I think you'll find a court would see that very differently, especially the bit relating to........

The principal Intellectual Property Rights are as follows:

* Design Rights
* The law of Confidential information

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

sorry mate but I dont know how to access previous versions of the rules from so far back. I only know how to get the up to date ones where ammendments have been made.

One little thing confused me though?



how does this account for the drivers being able to independantly change the bias from left, to right, to front, to rear many times during a lap. :confused:

---

If I understand correctly, the cars have two brake systems, one for the front and one for the back (too lazy to check again the regulations).

As for the right/left bias, as far as I can tell that has always being illegal in F1. Besides, it would make braking without spinning impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Certainly.

Not sure how that helps your argument though.

---

it doesn't help my arguement at all. I was just using common sense but you wanted to get wrapped up in legal definitions that dont exist.

Common sense prevails ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

If I understand correctly, the cars have two brake systems, one for the front and one for the back (too lazy to check again the regulations).

As for the right/left bias, as far as I can tell that has always being illegal in F1. Besides, it would make braking without spinning impossible.

---

my knowledge is a couple of years out of date now but I thought individual brake bias was controlable from the wheel during the race. it can definatly control front / rear but I'm not sure about L/R so retract that claim unless anyone knows different.