So you believe that the FIA whom found McLaren guilty but didn't punish them for espionage wouldn't have done justice to Mr. Stepney? What are you :s mokin: ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Printable View
So you believe that the FIA whom found McLaren guilty but didn't punish them for espionage wouldn't have done justice to Mr. Stepney? What are you :s mokin: ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Actually it seems that you're nit-picking about grammar when anyone with common sense knows what the poster is referring to rather than trying to defend your incorrect argument as to what differentiates whistleblowing and spying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
I suggest you address the matter at hand rather than trying to a personal attack on anyone with an opinion differing from yours.
So your first sentence states that it was the "logical" process, but your second admits that it was not the "correct" process? Very good, you contradicted yourself in one single post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
wmcot, I believe the "logical process" Flat.tyres refers to is the one I speculated on earlier (post #191) regarding the possible actions of the "whistleblower", a part of which tamburello took exception to.
Remember, the theft of Ferrari's IP was carried out by a Ferrari employee, not McLaren. Also remember there are two distinct pieces of IP - the email highlighting the flexi-floor, then the 780-page document.
In the case of the email, we can argue about the correct courses of action that could have been taken once the contents were known by McLaren, but they are not responsible for the theft.
Once they knew of the contents of the email what were they to do? In light of the fact that it appeared Ferrari had a floor designed to get around the rules should they simply have returned the email to Ferrari and done nothing? Should they have forwarded the email to the FIA explaining how it had come into their possession? Or should they have raised the question with the FIA in the way they did, which did not (initially) break the confidence of the whistleblower?
What difference would taking one of the first two options have made to the outcome? Either way Ferrari were running a floor that was designed to get around the regulations and McLaren knew the contents whatever they did.
What exactly were McLaren guilty of with regard to the email?
Accepting and using confidential information about another team?!Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Ok. Yes the information was accepted (but not sought) and used but would you expect any team to ignore such information? The email suggested that a team had designed part of their car to get around the rules. Is that acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Having been in receipt of the email, would any team have read it, ignored the contents, returned it to the sender or owner, and done nothing?
on the evidence at the moment, the only confidential information they used about Ferrari was an email from (allegedly) Nigel Stepney regarding an illegal (although Ferrari fans claim it wasnt illegal at the time because it bypassed the tests in place to check for this illegality) floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
McLaren asked the FIA for clarification on this type of floor and the FIA rightly concluded that it was illigal and tighten up their testing procedures so that it reflected this.
thats what upsets Ferrari and their fans. had McLaren used the information in the email to develop their own floor, they would have been guilty as Ferrari and guilty of espionage but they didnt.
:laugh: Im the last person to complain about grammer. Mine is terrible :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
I was trying to look at it from the perspective as a whole and Tamburello was quoting chapter and verse about legal arguements and definitions to the extent or insinuating we would be laughed out of court if we applied the common sense we were trying to argue.
I merely pointed out that the Legal definitions he was using were not actually legal because they were made up.
as for a personal attack :confused: I am a little unclear about this one. I believe that I agreed that correcting him didnt strenghten my case whatsoever. I also will accept with people with a different opinion but reserve the right to ask the question with what McLaren actually did wrong in this situation.
as Arrows said, what else could they have realistically done?
They should have said "Thank you but we advise you to go straight to Max with this info".Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
How easy it would have been. ;)
The floor was not illegal. Come back when you get this point right, it's really getting boring to explain it to you again and again (and I see that others tried to explain it to you extensively for some time too) :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres