Force India "faces decision" - Page 3

Flavio Galtieri · 26 Mar 2012, 15:48 (Ref:3048869)

Fascinating stuff!

Just proves how you always need more than one source on any story before you can even start to draw conclusions yourself.

I suspect Joe will skip over these details

**bella** · 26 Mar 2012, 16:28 (Ref:3048891)

to be fair to joe, i think the concorde agreement stuff came out over this weekend whereas his post was from before. but from the caterham standpoint it's easy enough to dismiss - they can simply say they knew nothing of this being force india's work. if they can prove their due diligence was adequate they can firmly plant the ball in aerolab's court and say they lied to us.

but then again if it did represent a big corner cutting exercise as is suggested marussia really do have a point, and considering the precedent that was set with photocopiergate back yonder it's only fair that caterham/whatevertheyare get the same punishment that mclaren did then.

Zen · 27 Mar 2012, 08:41 (Ref:3049229)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bella

going back to the force india/lotus or caterham or whatever shenanigans, another piece in the jigsaw has been provided in gpweek. this time it's addressing the concorde agreement issue that marussia have asked to be investigated. it's worth a read in the context of joe saward's side of things:

http://mag.gpweek.com/#folio=33

(hope that link works till the next issue)

The situation between Force India and Caterham/Aerolab could result in Maclaren getting their $100 million fine back according to the Daily Mail or Caterham being kicked out of F1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-2120696/Fernandes-spy-row.html

**bella** · 27 Mar 2012, 09:37 (Ref:3049265)

not according to the daily mail, according to the deputy team principal of force india...

this is the problem with poor journalism, summarising for the newspapers and the need for attention grabbing stories. what started as someone hypothesising about possible outcomes is twisted into "this is a likely outcome".

how force india can argue ownership of anything they allegedly (according to aerolab) haven't paid for is a bit of a mystery to me.

sizzle · 27 Mar 2012, 10:02 (Ref:3049287)

[QUOTE=bella;3049265how force india can argue ownership of anything they allegedly (according to aerolab) haven't paid for is a bit of a mystery to me.[/QUOTE]

Zen · 27 Mar 2012, 10:18 (Ref:3049299)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bella

not according to the daily mail, according to the deputy team principal of force india...

this is the problem with poor journalism, summarising for the newspapers and the need for attention grabbing stories. what started as someone hypothesising about possible outcomes is twisted into "this is a likely outcome".

how force india can argue ownership of anything they allegedly (according to aerolab) haven't paid for is a bit of a mystery to me.

Surely its because Force India own the intellectual property rights no mystery there,

**bella** · 27 Mar 2012, 10:20 (Ref:3049302)

but it's work by a supplier. if you don't pay a supplier, you don't own the goods. basic rule.

Zen · 27 Mar 2012, 10:25 (Ref:3049304)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bella

but it's work by a supplier. if you don't pay a supplier, you don't own the goods. basic rule.

Thats not what it says in this article, where Marussia have joined the fray.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...w-spy-row.html

"The court case between Caterham and Force India has clearly been a very complicated one.
"But from our point of view, we're less interested in the overall pros and cons of the individual issues of the different parties involved.
"The key thing for us is that in the judgment itself there seems to be a quite clear reference to an infringement of copyright and that has us extremely concerned as a team competing in the championship.
"We're in communication with the FIA on the matter and we have every confidence that the FIA can deal with these matters in the correct way.
"We have no reason to believe that that won't happen.
Lowdon added: "The rules of the sport are very complicated. But there is a fundamental premise in Formula One as it currently operates that every entrant is a constructor.
"And there are very clear definitions of what a constructor is.
"The basic principle is that you design and or own the intellectual property of various key parts to the car that you compete with. It's very, very fundamental to the sport.
"Without those safeguards we would not have a level playing field and it would not be the Formula One world championship we understand it to be."

**bella** · 27 Mar 2012, 10:41 (Ref:3049306)

i'm not arguing against you, i'm offering another side, fwiw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zen

The key thing for us is that in the judgment itself there seems to be a quite clear reference to an infringement of copyright and that has us extremely concerned as a team competing in the championship.

yes, what he's clearly saying is that it needs to be investigated in the context of the concorde agreement. the definition of a constructor is clearly at odds with the normal supplier-customer relationship, so it's not something that can be looked at as a black and white decision.

you cannot go around taking work that is not yours and using it. that is clearly a breach of copyright. but were force india themselves breaching copyright by using the stuff in the first place? isn't that what aerolab were awarded a big wad of money for?

so yes, if you just look at the fact that 1malaysia/caterham were found in breach of copyright then they should be penalised accordingly. but so should force india for using stuff that clearly wasn't theirs, and the court implied that by making force india pay aerolab unpaid fees.

see here: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98235

Zen · 27 Mar 2012, 10:51 (Ref:3049310)

I think the FIA's take on it will be more intersting than a British High Court Judge's, with some of the other teams having a vested interest the FIA will need to act quickly and transparently.

Caterham kicked out or McLaren getting their $100 million back for me I would like to see McLaren get their money back............cant see that happening though.

**bella** · 27 Mar 2012, 11:50 (Ref:3049343)

bear in mind they would only be kicked out of the 2010 championship, likewise force india.

as the gpweek article says, that's in the interests of marussia because if caterham were out, they'd lose the financial advantages that come with being a column 2 team. and marussia would "only" need to finish ahead this year to receive that money next year instead.

it's all immensly interesting! it would be interesting to hear from an honorable member of the forum with some legal background though.

**Peter Mallett** · 27 Mar 2012, 13:58 (Ref:3049436)

Don't look at me, I can't be arsed to read it all. Plus it may be heard under French law.

**bella** · 27 Mar 2012, 14:16 (Ref:3049449)

rats

it was worth a try

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Spyker to be named "Force India"	Red Bulldog	Formula One	81	1 Nov 2007 19:51