Printable View
"For some weeks Red Bull Racing has been looking at legal responses to the recent revelation that Spyker had acquired design documents from Milton Keynes. Spyker revealed the drawings as part of its case against Scuderia Toro Rosso, claiming that Red Bull and Toro Rosso parts are interchangeable."
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19043.html
Also in this week's Autosport....showed a pic of the top with the RBR logo. So it must be an insider, right?
why having two teams in F1. This only causes teams lose money and interest in the sport sooner by being a two time loser.
I say well done to Spyker for getting their hands on this very valuable document. It really goes to the heart of the matter, because Spyker's claim is that Red Bull Racing designs parts for Scuderia Toro Rosso in violation of the Concorde Agreement's provisions defining "Constructors". Red Bull Racing, on the other hand, claims that both its car and Scuderia Toro Rosso's car are designed not by Red Bull Racing, but by Red Bull Technologies, which would make everything legal. Now, here comes a document which implies strongly that Red Bull Racing is the designer of the part in question. It's almost a smoking gun, though Gerhard Berger has come up with a clever explanation, which the arbitrator could use as a rationale for allowing both RBR and STR to continue drawing constructors' TV revenues.
In a separate development, Frank Williams has made it clear that he does not intend to press Williams's case through the courts, but instead is pressing Bernie Ecclestone to resolve the matter by declaring that Constructors' TV revenue will go only to the nine teams who design and manufacture their own chassis.
The damning Red Bull Racing document which Spyker has obtained, via industrial espionage, is one which they could have obtained by subpoena in a proper lawsuit in the United States. Since that avenue was not available to them, however, in the FIA-sanctioned arbitration process, they got it "by other means". Well done Spyker!!!! Congratulations, Colin Kolles!! Keep up the good work.
So what if STR has plans, with STR marked on them, that are somewhat different from the RedBull ones?
I don't even know if Spyker won't get into trouble for stealing RedBull Technologies' Intellectual Property! I suppose it isn't very legal even if they bought if from STR or RB personal, cause it would be instigation to fraud or something.
2 ex-ferrari employee's faced a minimum of 2 years in prison if they where found guilty of bringing ferrari secrets to Toyota, I see very little difference here, so if Red Bull now who gave Spyker the plans...
As far as what's printed on the designs, Berger explained that this was due to the fact that Red Bull Technologies began life as Red Bull Racing LTD, which was still seperate to Red Bull Racing. This Kinda reminds me of my Turbo Grafx. initially Turbo Grafx was sold in USA and Canada under the NEC america banner, they renamed to Turbo Technologies Inc (TTI) and when they stopped producing systems, renamed to Turbozone direct in the USA, and Donsal in Canada to sell direct to gamers. I had purchased stuff from both TTI canada, and Donsal, but depsite the new name, the packages sent by Donsal after almost a year under the new name still carried the TTI logos, and headers on the receipts.
:dozey: Hhmmm... I will buy the information you stole from your company...
So that I can prove your Company is as Crooked as We are ????
;) Gotta luv the honesty displayed here !!!
Must be another group of Businessmen who graduated from Lauda's School of Ethical Behavior !!! :p :
RedBull consider legal action against former employee and even Spyker.
Seems to me that Spyker are heading towards deep trouble.
http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlin...18095800.shtml
ioan, with all due respect, you have spectacularly missed the point. The point is that Scuderia Toro Rosso's lower bracket T tray stay was apparently designed by Red Bull Racing, another Constructor, rather than by Red Bull Technologies, an outside contractor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
Spyker's liability here turns on one issue and one issue only: what, if anything, did Spyker do to get this document? If they even suggested to the Red Bull leaker that they would like to see it, if they so much as hinted to him that such documents would be of interest to them, then they are guilty of civil and criminal offenses. But if, as they will undoubtedly claim, they merely were the happy recipients of a totally unsolicited but very welcome piece of mail, then they are completely off the hook, though the leaker himself is in a much more difficult position.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
There is no doubt in my mind that Colin Kolles will have taken legal advice before admitting that he had this confidential Red Bull document, and the advice will have been that he should keep it entirely quiet if there is any evidence at all that the document was solicited. The fact that Kolles has allowed the world to know that he obtained the document satisfies me that he has total deniability of any effort having been made by Spyker to obtain it. Hence, I feel confident that Mr. Kolles and the team he so admirably heads will come out of this smelling like a rose. And even if the document is inadmissible in the arbitration, it has already been seen by everybody, including Bernie Ecclestone, so the damage to Red Bull's case has already been done. Congratulations, Spyker, and a huge thank you is due to the Red Bull employee who did the right thing and exposed as false Gerhard Berger's claims that both his car and Red Bull's car are designed by a third party, Red Bull Technologies.
(Did you notice, no one at Red Bull is denying the document is genuine? Nice job.)
They didn't deny anything cause they don't need to, first they have an explanation which goes along with their previous ones and than if they can prove that Spyker are at fault for getting those plans than they are of the hook and Spyker will lose all their credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Ok I'll bite now lets start removing some illegal *******s from F1. Red Bull is a **** drink and the fact people mix it with vodka makes it even worse for the public. Give that team to someone from Napa Valley who produces something fit to drink. Berger was never capable of winning a WDC so why should he be a team owner - give that team to MS to compete with Ferrari.
Did you wake up on the wrong side or you just drank some RedBull Vodka?! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by fousto
I think removing Red Bull entirely is a little strong, fousto, but they should at least be removed from the trough of Constructors' TV money. They have no business there at all, unless they are willing to take on the cost of design and manufacturing, like the real Constructors.Quote:
Originally Posted by fousto
Compare Colin Kolles to Paul Stoddart. Both were fighting for fair shares of TV revenue for independent teams, but whereas Stoddart's weapons were pity and accusation, Kolles has stuck to reason, evidence, and truth. Oh yes, a little espionage as well, but what's a little spying between F1 friends?
so Gannex your saying that RB as well as Toro Rosso could be removed from the Championship?
Oh f***
Ok, what if Berger paid 25% of Newey's contract, and the Toro Rosso cars where manufactured and built in Italy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
And what if Newey designed subtle differences that made the parts on the Toro Rosso incompatible with the Red Bulls?
Its very sad when there is actually someone out there that you can compare to Stoddart!!! And I thought things where getting better :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Lawyers, deforming reality to suit their POV. Stealing or asking someone to steal for them is not a little espionage, and as history shows (i.e. Toyota) they might get in deep trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozrevhead
oz and PSfan, my position is very simple, and is the same as Williams's and Spyker's position. Toro Rosso and Super Aguri have both claimed to be Constructors, with a capital 'C', as defined in the Concorde Agreement. But they are not, because one of the elements of the definition of a Constructor is that it may not use parts designed by another Constructor. Toro Rosso uses parts designed by Red Bull and Super Aguri uses parts designed by Honda. That makes them competitors, but not Constructors.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
If the two teams are not Constructors, that does not mean, in my opinion, that they should not be allowed to continue in Formula 1. Their drivers are entered into the Drivers' Championship, and properly so. If Davidson, Sato, Liuzzi or Speed should ever score points, those points should be awarded, and their teams should receive the TV money that the Concorde Agreement awards for points in the Drivers' Championship. But the two teams should not be listed as entrants in the Constructors' Championship, should not receive points in the Constructors' Championship, and should not receive any of the TV revenue or other privileges accorded to Constructors. Because they are not Constructors! They do not meet the definition; simple as that.
That is the legal argument, and I think it is unimpeachable. The logic behind the rule prohibiting parts designed by another Constructor is, however, also very sound. It is meant to ensure that every Constructor is obliged to go to the trouble and expense of designing its own car (or paying an outside contractor, like Dallara or Lola, to do it for them). If they aren't prepared to enter their own design, and want to use a fellow competitor's design, as Prodrive intends to do, then how on earth can they be considered entrants in a competition between designers?
Let me give you an analogy. Each year in Ruritania there is a Storytelling Championship where authors read short stories to a panel of judges. There are two competitions, one for the Best Author, and one for the Best Reading Performance. You can enter either competition, or both. One year, Mr. Shakespeare shows up and reads his story badly, but all agree it is a brilliant story. The next entrant, Mr. Olivier, with Shakespeare's permission, also reads Shakespeare's story, but he reads it so well that the judges are moved to tears. Olivier wins the prize for Best Reading Performance, which no one objects to, but also comes second in the Best Author competition. The guy who comes third in Best Author objects, saying he should be second, since Olivier isn't an author at all, and shouldn't even be entered in the Best Author competition. He's right, isn't he? And so is Kolles, and so is Williams.
The way I see it Spyker are trying to make sure they receive a part of the TV money no matter how bad their cars are/will be.
Williams don't need to do that as for now neither STR or SAF1 are finishing in front of them.
I agree, and Spyker are right to do it because TV money is supposed to go to the top ten Constructors. Not counting Toro Rosso and Super Aguri, Spyker are likely to be the ninth Constructor, which should give them a fair wad of cash, a well-earned, hard-fought, expensively achieved return on their investment in design and manufacturing capability.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Good principle in theory, but in practice its different. By the same logic, RBR would have been punished in 2005 for essentially using Jaguars, same with the Prost team using old Benneton's in the late 1990's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Where the line is slightly muddy, the FIA won't act, unless they are at the centre of a championship. Just ask Renault with their mass dampers last year.
Malllen, there was nothing illegal about Red Bull using Jaguar's designs, nor about Prost using Benneton's. They were not using parts designed by a then current F1 team. The prohibition is against using parts that are designed by another CURRENT competitor.
Benneton was a then current F1 team in the late 1990s.
By the logic that they were not penalised, that would exclude Super Aguri from this debate as they are also using an old car, like Prost were with the Benneton.
The STR situation is a little more contentious.
If you designed the part yourself, or if you bought the design of the part from someone else, so that only you own it, then you're ok to use the part. I didn't realise Benneton were still operating when Prost used parts Benneton had designed, but I take your word for it. It doesn't matter though, under the law, because the parts Benneton designed were no longer the intellectual property of Benneton when Prost used them. Prost must have bought Benneton's redundant designs, thus making them their own. Super Aguri are legal only if all the Honda-designed parts they are using are not being used by Honda at the moment, and the designs of those parts have been sold by Honda to Super Aguri for Super Aguri's EXCLUSIVE use. I doubt that is the case, which is why Super Aguri are keeping such a low profile in this dispute. They know they are guilty.
That's just wishful thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Williams are not yelling around either like Spyker, that doesn't mean they couldn't do it.
I doubt that Spyker will win the case. Stolen proof will not be admitted, and if the plans will not be admitted than how ill they prove that they are right?
Also even if at this moment STR and SA will change the cars or the alleged common parts, they will be eligible for Constructors points and given Spyker's form I know who will get the money at the end of the season.
Williams are making just as much noise as Spyker about this. It's just that Williams are making their arguments in private, Spyker in public. Between them, they have all the bases covered.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I think you are right there, because the FIA and the entire F1 community is against Williams and Spyker. But I doubt that it will come down to a binding decision from the arbitrator. Rather, Ecclestone will find a formula and pressure the teams into agreeing to it. It will give Williams and Spyker some, but not all, of what they are demanding. It will be unjust, because if justice were to prevail, Williams and Spyker would get all they are asking for, the elimination of the two non-constructing teams from the Constructors' Championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Here is the funny thing about Red Bull using the Jaguar in 2005, it wasn't a Jaguar designed car!!! It was Constructed by Jaguar F1 (which was essentially renamed Red Bull Racing, but the Car was designed by Ford which wasn't a Constructor at the time which then allowed Toro Rosso to use the RB1 designs in 2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
That is the loophole Red Bull and Torro are using this time. The parts are claimed to be designed by Red Bull Tech. (Formerly Red Bull Racing LTD. which is a seperate entity to Red Bull Racing apperantly) Neither are a constructor in F1
And as for the whole Prost using Benettons? why did this come up? What is more interesting is Ligier Using Benetton chassis' while Flav owned them and ran Benetton at the same time!!! (I've read that Braitore bought the Ligier team to help secure Renault engines but thats another story...)
Unfortunately its not that simple, despite FIA claiming in Bahrain that they could not rule on dq'ing the Toro Rossos because in was a Concorde issue, they still confiscated alot of parts in the process, I'm not sure if this would be admissable either. But Spyker doesn't need the designs they had in order to make their case anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The noises Williams are making don't impress me much either. I guess now secure in thinking that not only will they finish ahead of Aguri and Team Torro, that they objection to the "customer cars" seems only slightly louder then say Toyota's and BMW's. In fact Frank went on record as saying he would object to Bernie's simple but most obvious solution to this mess of paying TV money to all 11 or 12 teams from here on out. Seems Williams now secure that they will be getting some, don't want it spread out thinner to all the teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Williams's noise doesn't impress you? I think you're underestimating the influence of a quiet word from Frank Williams into the ear of Bernie Ecclestone.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
But you've got it dead right, in my view, when you say this is of more financial importance to Spyker than it is to Williams. But Williams will not desert Spyker in spite of that. They are in the right, and Williams will support them as far as Williams can.
This doesn't sound like a whisper in Bernies ear:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
The way I see it, paying all the teams makes sense, and if it fixes this quickly then all the better. Unless Toro Rosso and Super Aguri took some major shortcuts in their schemes to use the "3rd party design" loophole. Then I don't see Spyker winning the arbitration, and since they look poised for finish 11th, now Williams will be standing in their way from collecting any money at all.Quote:
"Constructors have their own fund and anybody who races in a Grand Prix, providing they are eligible to start, shares the money. There's talk that the money might go down to 12th place, to which we'll object obviously."
http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/news_s...me=auto_racing
Provided Newey was smart enough that after he was done designing his Red Bull part, that he'd print it out, and have someone from Red Bull Tech, walk it across the road to Red Bull Racing. Then before printing out one for Toro Rosso, alter it enough so it won't fit the Red Bull car, and Express post the Rosso version to Italy so they can build it too, in other words every part would have to be redesigned for Toro Rosso which isn't that hard to do with everything drawn up on computers these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
In the case of Super Aguri. Honda R&D are the 3rd party designers, but instead of a new chassis, the Aguri cars are a seperate evolution of last years Honda, this will work only if Honda R&D are smart enough to make sure there is zero carry over parts from last years Honda.
So I'm not convinced that Spyker is right.
this is all so pointless.
Spyker should just build a better car themselves and focus on their own business. The connection between Torro Rossi and RBR is so transparent that their collaboration is expected and of little consequence.
Spyker comes out looking like whiners rather than competitors. Nothing they will do will change their "last on the grid" status. Affecting the revenue from TR or RBR or Hondo or S.Aguri won't make them faster or better. which, after all is the main reason for them competing in F1..to win races.
If their secondary motive is to help boost sales of their road cars, then this pursuit won't change that. Only performing better will. ( in terms of TV time etc.)
But if their main goal is to make a profit and capture more money from the TV contract, then they are in f1 for all the wrong reasons. Which doesn't endear them to anyone, especially those looking for competitive cars.
Get some sort of deal with BMW or McClaren, Toyota or something.
I bet you that prodrive will go a completely different route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Yah, I suspect David Richards is gonna write McLeran a cheque, and a McLeran will deliver a chassis :p :
Well that would be my interpretation of a Customer car... Not someone who borrows the designs or aspects of it, and builds a car from that (That would be a knock-off wouldn't it? )
[quote="PSfan"]Yah, I suspect David Richards is gonna write McLeran a cheque, and a McLeran will deliver a chassis :p :
;) Nothing lately from Richards on Pro-drive's F-1 plans for 2008. He did say early on that they were considering using both the engine & chassis from one current competitor (McLaren/Mercedes) in 2008.
:dozey: Oh, Richard's did make a comment on the Aston Martin aquisition recently. They have No Plans to re-enter Aston Martin in ALMS this year. :(
Of course they should, and they ARE trying to build a better car. But the Formula 1 business, especially for independents like Spyker, is fought on very small margins. There isn't a lot of slack in the figures for smaller teams, so if they lose Constructors' TV Revenue, which they counted on when they bought the business, which was part of the justification for their investment in the business, which was an anticipated revenue stream from the business, spelled out in the contract governing F1, agreed to by everyone in the paddock, then I hope you'll forgive them for trying to get that small, but crucial piece of revenue on which they have relied, and to which they are entitled. Why that revenue should be given to Red Bull, who are unwilling to incur the expense of designing and manufacturing two different cars, but want credit for having done so, or to Honda, who want to offset the cost of their second team using Spyker's and Williams's money, why that revenue should go to them, I am at a total loss to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Good. Got that off my chest. Now I can have another glass of wine.
Don't recall the Benneton-Prost deal but do recall the Benneton-Ligier fiasco in the mid 1990s ('96?) where the two new cars appeared identical except for engine. Tom Walkinshaw was involved with both teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Whenever Tom Walkinshaw was involved in anything, it was slippery. But don't get me started on Mr. Walkinshaw. . . There are libel laws out there that I ought to be thinking about.
And now with an update :)Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
Former Ferrari employees in jail
Two former employees of the Ferrari Formula 1 team faced trial on Monday and were found guilty. The duo stole Ferrari's software and brought it with them to their new office in Cologne at Toyota F1.
According to Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport the two Italians will be taken to jail. One will have to go behind bars for nine months, the other for one year and four months.
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2007/...oyees_in_jail/
Now if Red Bull figured out who leaked the plans... through the book at em!!! :p :
I would argue, PSfan, that there are huge differences between the actions of the two Ferrari defectors and the Red Bull employee who passed the Lower Bracket T-Tray Stay design to Spyker. The ex-Ferrari employees passed to a competitor hugely valuable intellectual property, many megabytes of information on CD-ROM's which would give Toyota ideas that would have taken them years to develop themselves, and would have cost millions. The motive for the theft was to give Toyota a competitive advantage at no development cost; a straightforward theft on a grand scale.
The Red Bull theft was completely different. It was the theft of a piece of paper, which detailed the design of a Lower Bracket T-Tray Stay, a very low-tech part, and a single part, the design of which would be of no use whatsoever to Spyker. Having that design would save Spyker not one penny of development cost, would give Spyker no benefit whatsoever in the design of their car, and in that sense, was not really the acquisition of a secret at all. The scale of the theft, therefore, was wholly different to the scale of the Ferrari theft.
And the motivation was entirely different as well. In the Ferrari case, the motivation was to steal Ferrari's ideas in order to gain unfair competitive advantage for Toyota at no cost. In Red Bull's case, the motivation was to expose as a lie Gerhard Berger's claim that Toro Rosso's car was designed by a third party, Red Bull Technologies. What was stolen, in fact, was merely the "Red Bull Racing" logo on the design document; the fact that it also showed a confidential design was totally incidental.
So the cases are entirely different, the Ferrari case being a serious case of industrial espionage, the Red Bull case being nothing more than an illegal short-cut to the truth, that the part in question was a Red Bull Racing design. The Ferrari thieves deserved their jail sentence; the Red Bull leaker, whose identity is known, by the way, to Mateschitz and Berger, deserves only a slap on the wrist by the justice system, and a hearty cheer from all those who cherish truth. One case involved thieves, the other involved a courageous whistle-blower; they could not be more different.
I guess it's just a matter of POV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
In both cases the employees were pushed to do something illegal in exchange material benefits.
Both Toyota and Spyker did the same thing.