That's a really good point, but is tangentially related to the central point of the author's article. I honestly agree- there's a lot more danger in what Holmes

That's a really good point, but is tangentially related to the central point of the author's article. I honestly agree- there's a lot more danger in what Holmes lied about versus what these other individuals lied about. Dangerous medical devices absolutely deserve to be treated differently than other types of fraud. The author's point is certainly weakened by trying to compare dangerous medical fraud to toxic workplace culture, as they're entirely different levels of bad. However, the author's point (which I don't necessarily agree with) is that Holmes is nominally on trial for fraud, and at least part of her crime is the same kinds of fraud that Uber and other large companies are guilty of. If we're punishing her for (at least in part) standard-issue fraud, why are we not also punishing the other CEO's of Silicon Valley companies for that kind of fraud? The additional context you've added by distinguishing between the "lying to investors" fraud and the "dangerous medical device" fraud makes sense now, which helps me to understand your larger issue with the article. The author definitely doesn't tell the whole story with respect to what she's been accused of. >I don't know if or why the prosecution did not consider that to be a separate crime. Now that you've explained that they're lumped together under fraud, I get where you're coming from. Her crimes are "fraud" in name only, and could have conceivably been called something entirely different.