Espionage at Ferrari and McLaren

[FLC]

Not only that, but there is another small but important difference: if Jean Todt, Almondo, Domenicalli or Montezemolo knew about Stepney's acts, I'm sure they would do everything in their power to stop him. Everything. Unless that refuted tale about Ferrari sending some distorted info. on purpose is true, which is very unlikely, I would like to think that they would be more keen on preventing their life work go down the drain in such a way.
So if one could find a team involved in this whole thing which is only technically guilty, if at all, it is Ferrari.

I guess when RD has to choose between his so called honesty and what's comfortable for the time being, he has some difficulties.

[FLC]

Jean Todt reveals more, as he accuses Mclaren of hypocrisy:

During yesterday's meeting, the McLaren bosses, with no exceptions, admitted that their chief designer had obtained since back in March, prior to the Australian GP, documents from Nigel Stepney.

Some of this data was used to prepare a clarification request submitted to the FIA, aimed clearly at us, given that throughout the Melbourne weekend, McLaren team principal and his closest colleagues made statements in which they threw doubt over 'some cars'.

Therefore, such information was in fact used to obtain an advantage over us: not through an improvement in their performance, but instead through limiting ours.

Let us move on. McLaren has confirmed that it has had to install a firewall to prevent further information from Stepney from reaching the team in the form of documents. Furthermore, Coughlan has been asked to tell the very same Stepney to stop sending him information.

It is a shame that before this, Coughlan asked [Stepney] for information on our brake balance system, then went to lunch with him in Spain, before calmly returning home with 780 pages of designs, diagrams, data and a whole lot more - as stated by the FIA release - with which to design, develop run and race a 2007 Ferrari Formula One car

Furthermore, I have to say that the proof of effective use requested by the FIA is impossible for Ferrari to furnish, because of course, Ferrari does not have access to the McLaren car.

A few weeks after the race in Melbourne, the McLaren team principal proposed that we should reach a sort of agreement to establish a better relationship between our two teams, thus avoiding any future denunciations to the sporting authority.

I replied that I found it impossible to believe him, because on several occasions we had seen that certain commitments had always been disregarded by McLaren. There was an exchange of views and, believing in their good faith, I agreed to sign this agreement on 9 June last.

Since that time and even earlier, McLaren was perfectly aware, not only of the emails sent by their informer within our company, but also of the fact that their chief designer had stayed in contact with him and had received and continued to be in possession of a significant amount of technical information that belonged to us.

So, on the one hand, they had come to say 'let us trust one another', and on the other they were hiding serious facts such as those just stated above, but making no effort to inform us as would have been in the spirit and to the letter of our agreement.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61180

APPEAL!!!!!

[jddh1]

If Coughlin and Dennis were diamond gangstas.

C: Yo wassup dawg! Got that 40 I sent you?
D: Yeah yeah. That was some good s--t! Whatchu got in there?
C: Yo, I got some good s--t in here dawg. Diamonds n' s--t!
D: Oh yeah? Let me see.
C: Nah dawg. I worked hart to steal dis s--t. If I show you, it will violate the law; I stole it, but if I don't use it, then I am not guilty of stealing it. These diamonds shall be shelved away from the public eye so that we do not make irrational decisions and allow ourselves to conform to the temptations of these beautiful sparkling diamonds that we did not work hard for. Besides, if I let you use them, you too shall be in trouble and might even lose your credibility as a honest diamond trader.
D: Whaaat? Whers did you learn to speaks like that C? That's bulls--t man. Come on now. We homies. Let's make chains and hit da club.
C: Hmm I don't know dawg...
D: Is fine homie. We gots this under control. Wanna ride my F430?

[persovik]

I assume, since McLaren only was charged with and found guily of breaching 151 c., that there is no rule anywhere that forbids a team being in possesion of information that is the intellectual property of another team. Is there a rule I'm not aware of?
I understand that spying can be seen as fraudulent etc., but wouldn't it really only be fraud if said IP was presented as your own, i.e. being incorporated into a design that by the rulebook have to be your own IP?

[mx_tifoso]

I assume, since McLaren only was charged with and found guily of breaching 151 c., that there is no rule anywhere that forbids a team being in possesion of information that is the intellectual property of another team. Is there a rule I'm not aware of?
I understand that spying can be seen as fraudulent etc., but wouldn't it really only be fraud if said IP was presented as your own, i.e. being incorporated into a design that by the rulebook have to be your own IP?

Reading the entire thread before jumping in is definately recommended.

From page 13. Thanks to checkered for the post.

FIA statement:

An extraordinary meeting of the World Motor Sport Council was held in Paris on 26 July, 2007. The following decision was taken:

The WMSC is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of article 151c of the International Sporting Code. However, there is insufficient evidence that this information was used in such a way as to interfere improperly with the FIA Formula One World Championship. We therefore impose no penalty.

[Rob W]

...under the bedrock princple in western legal systems, a private party must show four things to get a remedy against another: 1. existence of a duty, 2. breach of the duty, 3. injury and 4. causation. The FIA is not a legal body but these principles are grounded in basic reason and sanity and even little kids know them instinctively.

All largely irrelevant since this case was about the rules of the sport - not western legal systems/common law or otherwise. The rules of the sport are paramount to being and remaining a competitor - this is why if a team tires to sue another team for an on-track racing incident the FIA will just step in and say "we decide these things - not the courts - so drop it or you're not part of this anymore."

They have a set of rules which they are able to interpret (or modify their interpretation of if queried or simply modify the rules themselves!) however they want regardless of what an outside court says.

In this case just heard Ferarri really didn't have much to prove - McLaren were bought to task by the WMSC/FIA about. It was up to McLaren to explain why/how/when etc.

The legal system you mention above will however come into play with regards to Ferrari & Stepney/Coulghan and intellectual property as well as their employment arrangement and breaches of conditions of it (like secrecy).

Rob W

[nae]

unfortunately the 'getting your car nicked' story isnt true
the first time it gets nicked you loose your no claims (or reduce protected)
on the second time it gets nicked you premium goes up(and protection down)
eventually YOU are perceived to be a risk and therefore pay more for it

all through no fault of your own

In the UK forces if you have something stolen from you
and you cant show it was properly secured you yourself
get done with failing to secure you own property. which serves
2 porpoises, stops reports of petty theft and makes folks aware
it is there responsibility to secure there goods

[Seas]

What surprise me in this after court discussions on different “specialized F1 sites” and “specialized F1 magazines” is that they actually saying that World Motor Sport Council did a good job with this S**TY decision regarding McLaren. I think that is nonsense. Even more surprise me that old pall Sir Jacky Stewart (who suppose to know all this rules), actually, backed McLaren by saying to the Guardian: "If one individual is operating independently outside his own remit, then it is right that such clandestine behavior should be punished on an individual basis."
Ask yourself the question; if you received a package at your home address containing confidential information from a rival company that could be deemed to be industrial espionage, without the knowledge of your employer, would you expect your employer to be found guilty in court? Yes, the CEO is always responsible whatever happens in the company, whether or not he knew about it or not. Coughlan is a McLaren team member. Not only that, he's a member with rank, and one of 3 or 4 people who actually make decisions about development, technical aspects and tactics in the company and on the track.
So, it's childish to say "only Coughlan had it". McLaren had it! Also, if it's true that Coughlan spoke about this to his colleagues, then is nothing to talk about. Having something that's stolen, and Coughlan was at the time a McLaren employee, and especially knowing that it's there, is more then enough for a conviction of the team. Actually, Sporting Rules, Article 3.1, specifically state:

"It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure that all persons concerned by his entry observe all the requirements of the Agreement, the Code, the Technical Regulations and the Sporting Regulations."

In addition, Appendix 2 of the Entry Form for the F1 Sporting Regulations, contains the following statement which every competitor, including McLaren (and Sir Jacky Stewart with his Stewart team), have to sign every year:
"We confirm that we have read and understand the provisions of the International Sporting Code, the 1998 Concorde Agreement (including its Schedules), the 2007 Formula One Technical Regulations and the 2007 Formula One Sporting Regulations. We agree to be bound by them [...] and further we agree on our own behalf and on behalf of everyone associated with our participation in the 2007 FIA Formula One World Championship to observe them."

Section 151c states that "any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interest of motor sports generally" shall be deemed a breach of the rules.”

And, team doesn’t have to copy something to have used the data from these 780 pages. People are getting distracted by the question of whether McLaren used “like” Ferrari parts on their car - even McLaren have tried to make this the issue. The fact is that they don’t need to make same car parts like Ferrari. BTW, I don’t think that is possible, cars are completely different and what work great at Ferrari could be s**ty thing on McLaren. McLaren can use the information to gain an unfair advantage. Simply knowing the limits, capacity and construction of the Ferrari is enough to give them an advantage.
As Briatore commented decision: “Even we like to know weight distribution on Ferrari”. As you can see, every detail is very important to gain an advantage. And FIA made a wrong step by looking at McLaren car to find any benefit they gained by this documents. They will find nothing! They have to look on situation surrounding movable floor. How McLaren know that even before season started??? There is an advantage. And BTW, this floor was not an illegal thing. Just interpreting the rules.
I thought that integrity of Ron Dennis should never be in any doubt but after reading what Jean Todt sad in his interview to Autosport magazine…? I'm not so shure any more! Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope so!
Ferrari has every right to be annoyed and angry in this.
So, if McLaren is found guilty, why there is no punishment? Any?
I don’t think that exclusion is a good idea. I like when championship is wined on track, but McLaren should be fined heavily because the charges against them are proved, probably in the millions.

Few great links:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61143
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 918917.stm

[pRo]

They have to look on situation surrounding movable floor. How McLaren know that even before season started?

Stuff gets around. They used it on test sessions before season started. The fact that McLaren knew about it proves nothing.

How did Ferrari know about the Renault mass damper? Does it prove they had Renault technical data and they used it for their advance? How does any team know about any stuff and can complain/ask FIA about it? Should all such teams be punished?

[Jersey Tom]

Having any and all competitor data in a sport like F1 where pole can be decided by .002 seconds, is an ENORMOUS advantage. Strenghts, weaknesses, limitations, design focus, strategy.. all pretty big.

I'd think Coughlan and McLaren certainly used the information to their benefit. If you got that kinda info its too easy to use it to your advantage.. particularly when youre goin for the drivers and constructors championships.

That said there's unfortunately no way you can prove it unless some engineers at McLaren fess up and say "Yes. We used stolen info X at race Y to get advantage Z. All quite simple really"

[Rob W]

And, team doesn’t have to copy something to have used the data from these 780 pages. People are getting distracted by the question of whether McLaren used “like” Ferrari parts on their car...

This has been well covered. Yes, making use of someone else's data isn't the crime - simply being in possession of it is enough to fall foul of the rules.

Likewise, as pRo said above, many of the technical aspects of cars can be figured out simply by look at the cars during tests. The Ferrari rear-wing for example... to see the physical shape of something is often enough to work out the rest.

The moving floor-board saga... if someone had simply told McLaren about it but not given them any specific design info they are not in breach of any rules by querying the legality of it. In this case though, it appears that McLaren submitted their query because Coulghan came into possession of some drawings... But then again, what if an anonymous email just showed up with a little bit of info about another team? What are you supposed to - pretend you never read it?

Rob W

[siskue2005]

How did Ferrari know about the Renault mass damper? Does it prove they had Renault technical data and they used it for their advance? How does any team know about any stuff and can complain/ask FIA about it? Should all such teams be punished?

It was not Ferrari....get ur facts straight!
it was Mclaren who complained to FIA!

As ferrari also had the same device in their car...
No wonder Mclaren had few poles in the last part of the season!

[allan]

at first i was thinking that mclaren were innocent. In fact i was hoping for this result. However, after reading Tod's comments, and how Ron had known about those documents, and yet did not do anything about it, i think this decision is completely unfair.
About Pro's comments.. Honestly i wasn't surprised i knew u were gonna refer to the mass damper sooner or later, even though u know that it wasn't ferrari who complained about it....

[pRo]

even though u know that it wasn't ferrari who complained about it....

I know and that's why I didn't say Ferrari complained about it, just that they knew about it. Read my post more carefully siskue. But even Ferrari knew about it. And they weren't punished for it. Even though they knew detailed stuff about their competitors car. So as you can see, it's not that easy to just punish every team who knows some stuff about others cars, whether it's the whole team or just some person(s) in the team.

I know most Ferrari fans would love to see their worst rival get punished for whatever.

[wunderkind]

First of all, the moving floor concept is actually nothing new. Ever since the ground effect cars such as the Brabham BT46 and the Lotus 79 of the early eighties. F1 designers and aerodynamicists have looked for ways to exploit this area of car design to enable them to can run the cars closer to the circuit without running afoul of the pitlane scrutineering.

I dont think McLaren needed to resort to espionage to learn Ferrari was running a moving floor on their cars. Dont forget various F1 publications (Girogio Piola et al) have came up with quite detailed drawings of the Ferrari system (and BMW Sauber's). So is it really such a BIG secret??

Furthermore, if my memory serves me correctly, in one March issue (cant remember which week) of Autosport, Gary Anderson (ex Jordan and Jaguar designer) noted that many teams have run a moving floor before.

As to the existence of espionage and other covert (and overt) activities to gather intelligence of rival teams. I think this is as old as the sport itself. Every top teams have their own elaborate ways of gathering intelligence of other teams (mainly with pitlane photographers and advanced photo analysis programs). Renault has had their dummy Formula 1 engines stolen en route to various motor shows in the mid 1990's.

Hacking into other teams' communication system is another (remember in 1998 someone hacked into McLaren's radio system in Australia and told Hakkinen to pit??). This is harder now as most systems are encrypted (Pit to Driver are not however).

And not that many years ago, a certain well-funded team sent helicopters to Renaults factory to see what they were up to. Renault, still a government controlled entity at that time, ended up asking the French government to declare the airspace above the Renault F1 facility at Viry Chantillon a restricted airspace.

A couple of months ago, the Spyker team came into possession of a piece of engineering drawing that proved Red Bull and Toro Rosso came from the same design office!!!!!

I think one is also surprised by the lax management oversight that enabled staff to make off with confidential materials time and time again.

Finally, I think it is a well established legal doctrine that one who sought legal action should go to the courts with clean hands. Is Ferrari going to the courts with clean hands? Have they not tried to obtain confidential and proprietary information of other teams?

You be your own judge