Aerolab, Caterham and Force India

P i t p a s s on the other hand "upplay" the incident.

http://www.pitpass.c...ectual-property

Wich is the most correct wiew ?, and how do other news outlets spin the story.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Arnold held that Aerolab’s CAD designers had misused certain of Force India’s confidential information as a means of taking a short cut to produce a wind tunnel model which could begin to be used for testing as soon as possible. He further held that a small number of the relevant wind tunnel model components had found their way as full size components into the car which Caterham F1 Team (then racing under the name of Team Lotus) had raced at the beginning of the 2010 season.

The Judge held that neither Mr Gascoyne or Caterham F1 Team were liable for breach of confidence.

With regard to Aerolab/FondTech, the Judge ordered that they pay compensation to Force India in the sum of €25,000 whilst ordering Force India to pay Aerolab €846,230 in respect of the debt claim.

Edited by One, 22 March 2012 - 08:59.

The text of the judgement may be found here: http://www.bailii.or...h/2012/616.html

Edited by dau, 22 March 2012 - 09:05.

There shouldn't be any penalty to Caterham. But Mallaya should be banned for putting F1 in disrepute with his constant delays of payments to all and sundry suppliers.

Anyone care to make a tl;dr out of this?

From Paras 196 of http://www.bailii.or...h/2012/616.html


"As a result of the aerodynamic development described above, many of the aerodynamic parts of the initial Lotus model were replaced by differently designed parts during that period. Force India makes no complaint in respect of the replacement parts. It is common ground, however, that certain of the initial parts which are the subject of complaint survived with either no or few changes, and that full sized equivalents of those parts were incorporated into the Lotus car which raced in at least the first few races of the F1 2010 season. These are the front part of the front wing turning vane, the front wing mainplane and flap profiles, the vortex generator, the rear wing central section and assembly, rear brake duct lower element and the rear view mirror. "

Joe Saward adds some details and analysis to that press realase.
In a separate blog article Saward also tells about the background that led to this court case.

Is this Joe Saward, board member for Carterham? Doesn't even feel the need to declare this conflict of interest in his piece. Ridiculous.

Force India's press release was an incredible effort to spin bad news into good, but Saward's blog article appears to me as informative, impartial and unbiased. What's your problem with it?

If the job at Caterham has had any effect on Saward's writing, it's probably made Saward more careful not to air his own opinions as openly as before. That's actually a bit of a shame, since I quite like to read about his informed opinions, and you'd normally expect to find opinion pieces in a personal blog.

Let me preface this by saying im quite aware that this is his blog and is therefore not subject to stringent journalistic rules. However, Mr. Saward always markets himself as one of the untouchable insiders whos journalistic excellence speaks for itself and is immune to fault. To the point of being rude and feigning offence to the people who, with good reason calls his integrity into question. He then grandstands on his soapbox about why does he bother with blogging when he gets the slightest criticism.

Im sure you can tell i am no fan of Joe Saward .. neither am i a fan of any of the two parties he is discussing in his article.

The subject matter may appear to be ok but it is tainted by lack of disclosure. That's whats wrong with it. He is one of the first to point fingers in regards to lack of transparency in F1. It would do him some good to actually excercise that in his blog.

Oh and by the way .. .all you need to do is take a look at the comments section. The defensive attitude i was saying he has when questioned/criticised is clearly on display at the end of the article.

In the interests of full disclosure, Joe is a non-executive director of Caterham Cars Group Ltd. It is an advisory role and he is not involved in the operations or management of the F1 team.

What kind of disclosure are you looking for? In the Blog rules section of his blog Saward writes:

That seems pretty open and straightforward to me.

Mallaya should be banned for putting F1 in disrepute with his constant delays of payments to all and sundry suppliers.

So you mean, if I am a regular reader, I should first visit his Blog rules on daily basis?
I just love the way he talks of transparency.

If you forget who he is every time you visit then yes. Otherwise, once you know he's a director of Caterham you don't need to be told about it again.

WTF has that got to do with you Mr Slander?

What kind of disclosure are you looking for? In the Blog rules section of his blog Saward writes:

That seems pretty open and straightforward to me.

I will give you that he has probably paid 'some' of his suppliers on time. However, there are plenty stories out and about of him not being dilligent in paying is bills in a timely manner. This just being the latest example. How would YOU like to be owed more than 700,000 GBP for more than six months?

How would YOU like your IP - which you paid 700 000 GBP for - ending up on another car?

How would YOU like your IP - which you paid 700 000 GBP for - ending up on another car?

But Mallya didn't actually pay for it...or are you talking about something else?

But Mallya didn't actually pay for it...or are you talking about something else?

How would YOU like your IP - which you paid 700 000 GBP for - ending up on another car?

The blog rules was modified after the uproar in question.

Additionally, the disclosure i was looking for (as a reasonable person who doesnt visit the blog rules EVERY TIME i visit the site) is a standard disclosure snippet either at the beginning or the end of the story in question.

Does that seem like an unreasonable request to you?

No. But it's Saward's blog, so he gets to decide what he writes there.

I'm just happy that a well-informed F1 journalist like Saward bothers to write these blog articles. For me, his blog is one of the best sources of information about what goes on in the F1 world. From time to time he reveals some behind-the-scenes scoops before other reporters, and he often adds useful extra information to misleading and one-sided press releases -- like the one Force India published.

Edited by MaxisOne, 24 March 2012 - 01:17.

Pitpass.com originally copy-pasted Force India's tendentious press release, but they have recovered their journalistic integrity in the lastest Pitpass.com article: Do Lawyers Run Formula One?

Edited by One, 27 March 2012 - 11:18.

‘If nothing is now done, that means a free-for-all in the paddock. If nothing is done, could McLaren claim their $100million back? If the FIA do sanction against Caterham, it could cost them tens of millions.’

Fernandes spy row: Caterham could be kicked out of F1 in new scandal
Force India deputy team principal Bob Fernley said:
http://www.dailymail...F1-spy-row.html

Force India and Marussia believe this is a basic infringement of the FIA’s Sporting Code, pertinently Article 151c which refers to ‘any fraudulent conduct or act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally’.

Hmmm, I do have to ask. What did Force India lose from this? As far as I can see, nothing. Their 2009 and 2010 championship positions would not have been affected. It's not comparable to spygate in 2007 which could have changed the complexity of the championship.

What did Caterham gain? If the high court says not much, then I guess we have to believe that. Let's be frank here, they can't have gained that much: http://en.wikipedia....Prix#Qualifying

18. Jaime Alguersuari (Toro Rosso) - 1:57.071
19. Timo Glock (Virgin) - 1:59.728
20. Jarno Trulli (Lotus) - 1:59.852
21. Heikki Kovalainen (Lotus) - 2:00.313
22. Lucas di Grassi (Virgin) - 2:00.587
23. Bruno Senna (HRT) - 2:03.204
24. Karun Chandhok (HRT) - 2:04.904

The Force India's that day had 1:55.213 and 1:55.628 in Qualifying, so Lotus were 4.5 seconds slower than them. Surely if Lotus copied anything, they would have been much, much closer to the mid-pack?

But couldn't you make the argument they'd be closer to Virgin/HRT territory withou the 'head start' ?

Hmmm, I do have to ask. What did Force India lose from this? As far as I can see, nothing. Their 2009 and 2010 championship positions would not have been affected. It's not comparable to spygate in 2007 which could have changed the complexity of the championship.

What did Caterham gain? If the high court says not much, then I guess we have to believe that. Let's be frank here, they can't have gained that much: http://en.wikipedia....Prix#Qualifying

18. Jaime Alguersuari (Toro Rosso) - 1:57.071
19. Timo Glock (Virgin) - 1:59.728
20. Jarno Trulli (Lotus) - 1:59.852
21. Heikki Kovalainen (Lotus) - 2:00.313
22. Lucas di Grassi (Virgin) - 2:00.587
23. Bruno Senna (HRT) - 2:03.204
24. Karun Chandhok (HRT) - 2:04.904

The Force India's that day had 1:55.213 and 1:55.628 in Qualifying, so Lotus were 4.5 seconds slower than them. Surely if Lotus copied anything, they would have been much, much closer to the mid-pack?