Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

> What Elizabeth did wasn't far from what many many many founders do.

Hard disagree on that one.

It's certainly not common nor acceptable to knowingly lie to investors like Holmes did.

There is nothing normal or common about the type of fraud that Holmes perpetuated, despite attempts to downplay or normalize it.

> I'm sure it's going to be an unpopular opinion but personally if this is the new standard, the SEC should have a pretty long list of founders to try at this standard.

Can you name a single one? Or is this just cynical speculation?

I've seen a lot of attempts to downplay Theranos' blatant fraud as an "everybody does it", but I haven't seen anyone calling out other companies who were caught committing fraud and everyone, including their investors, just shrugged it off. It's not normal.

View on HN

Of course I can name multiple, I've been involved in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in startups deals, I've spent over 15 years in the industry...

Are you willing or can you share the names of some of these companies?

No. I don't think what they did was wrong a), and, b) because it genuinely is prevalent. Maybe if the statue of limitations passed on some of the startups I've been involved in, I might consider it, but even then, doubtful.. It doesn't matter what was done, the startups were successful and the investors got paid back, so who is going to ask questions and why?

I mean, on one hand, yes, if nobody is harmed, there really isn't a case for fraud.

But I agree with the other responder, I've also been in many startups and have certainly seen tons of exaggerations about the future but never outright lies about the present that Holmes was guilty of. Even worse, if you're going to lie about the present, you should at least have strong confidence your lie is physically possible - Theranos tech was always a sham from day 1.

I just don't buy at all the "everyone in Silicon Valley does it" spiel, because if they did, investors of failed startups (i.e. the majority) would have tons of reasons to sue and put people in jail.

Frankly, making an outrageous claim and then just blithely going "Nope, I'm not going to give even a single example" makes it sound like you are spouting just as much bullshit as Holmes did. Or alternatively, like you're just not understanding the difference between over-optimistic forecasts and claims of actual outcome. Which is it?

Were any of these startups providing medical care or diagnostics to people on false pretenses?

She was found guilty of investor fraud, not medical/patient fraud.

Your implied question is "why is this case special?", when so many startups supposedly do this. Most startups aren't giving people input into major medical decisions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com