3 ms·

How is what she did different from all the other silicon valley startups that fail? They get a buttload of money to develop something and then they cannot. From

by bawana 7y ago

How is what she did different from all the other silicon valley startups that fail? They get a buttload of money to develop something and then they cannot. From what I've read, most VCs today dont even expect to make their money off of an exit or an IPO, rather from their fees-but that's besides the point.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
beisner 7y ago
It’s the intention. Intention is really important in the US legal system; killing someone on purpose is murder but by accident is manslaughter, even if the result is the same. Same goes for finance; failing to do something you intended to do is one thing, but lying to investors and the public that you’re doing it even though you secretly are not is another. And so we punish the second because there was an intent to defraud investors, even if the investors were foolish too.
mandevil 7y ago
Because instead of promising to build Uber for toilets and then failing to deliver a profitable company, she did deliver thousands of inaccurate medical test results to innocent people who then potentially made medical decisions based on those test results.
CamperBob2 7y ago
Pets.com didn't get anyone killed. There's an excellent chance that Theranos did.
- ipython 7y ago
  No chance, at least one person did die: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gibbons_(biochemist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gibbons_(biochemist)
GeneralMayhem 7y ago
Theranos wasn't something that failed to happen because of execution or market trends, it was something that mathematically could not and cannot happen, ever. Also, when that became apparent, the company's response was not to pivot to something else, or to close up shop and return their investors' money; instead, it was to fraudulently claim that this mathematically-impossible process existed, and to sell it.
bawana 7y ago
wow...4 downvotes... the cost of my ignorance

by bawana 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

beisner 7y ago

It’s the intention. Intention is really important in the US legal system; killing someone on purpose is murder but by accident is manslaughter, even if the result is the same. Same goes for finance; failing to do something you intended to do is one thing, but lying to investors and the public that you’re doing it even though you secretly are not is another. And so we punish the second because there was an intent to defraud investors, even if the investors were foolish too.

mandevil 7y ago

Because instead of promising to build Uber for toilets and then failing to deliver a profitable company, she did deliver thousands of inaccurate medical test results to innocent people who then potentially made medical decisions based on those test results.

CamperBob2 7y ago

Pets.com didn't get anyone killed. There's an excellent chance that Theranos did.

ipython 7y ago
No chance, at least one person did die: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gibbons_(biochemist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gibbons_(biochemist)

GeneralMayhem 7y ago

Theranos wasn't something that failed to happen because of execution or market trends, it was something that mathematically could not and cannot happen, ever. Also, when that became apparent, the company's response was not to pivot to something else, or to close up shop and return their investors' money; instead, it was to fraudulently claim that this mathematically-impossible process existed, and to sell it.

bawana 7y ago

wow...4 downvotes... the cost of my ignorance