The jury has concluded deliberations and will announce a verdict in coming minutes. Open thread for discussion and related links.
See also: Conrad Black Trial blog.
Guilty on 4 of 13 counts (corrected):
After 10 days of deliberations, the jury at the fraud trial for Conrad Black has found the former media baron guilty on four of 13 counts in his fraud and racketeering trial, including the serious charge of obstruction of justice.
Black was cleared of the charge of racketeering, but legal expert Paula Todd called the obstruction charge “extraordinary.”
Conrad Black is a prime example why people choose to be tried by a jury. What the hell do these guys know about corporate law? As much as I know……………..nothing. Juries are easily swayed by a BSing lawyer. He would not have faired as well with a judge alone.
I attended Upper Canada College a few years after Conrad Black left. Upper classmen told snickering tales of Black stealing exam papers before the actual exams were to be written, and then selling copies to other students. Some say he was expelled; Black has always maintained he left on his own terms. Black has also always threatened to sue anyone who claims these rumours are true.
Now let’s fast forward a few years. Black and pals see an opportunity to pay themselves a few million bucks more by inventing non-compete clauses and payments – money that should have gone to the shareholders. Now, the shareholders could have gone to civil court to try to get the money back, but the fact remains that Black committed fraud, and that’s a felony.
I thought Chretien’s treatment of Black was petty. I never quite got what was so important to Black about being a lord, but that’s his business. However, when you act as pompous and full of yourself as Black did, you make enemies, and you’d better make sure you’re squeaky clean. In the end, that he would risk so much for a few hundred thousand dollars, proves to me that he really thinks the rules don’t apply to him.
I respect people like Jim Balsillie of RIM, or Eugene Melnyk (owner of the Ottawa Senators and a multi-millionaire pharma maker), or Terry Matthews, who started Mitel, Newbridge, and March Networks, and provided thousands of jobs in the Ottawa area, so don’t lump me in as someone who is envious of people who’ve made money; I wish there were more of them in Canada.
But in Black’s case, I sum it up in a single word: karma.
KevinB
Funny choice of examples as two of the three examples you use have run afoul of regulatory bodies and or the law.
Via CBC may 18
“Eugene Melnyk has agreed to pay $1 million to settle trading disclosure allegations levelled against him by Ontario regulators.
He will also be barred from being a director of Biovail for a year, beginning June 30. That’s when Melnyk will retire as chairman of the pharmaceutical giant he founded 27 years ago.”
The boys at RIM stole NTPs idea and ended up having to pay tens of millions for their theft.
Matthews seems to be an ok example though
Hi Ward,
I have some sympathy for Melnyk; the allegation were made long after he’d built Biovail into a big company, and securities regulations in this country are such a hodge-podge (what’s legal in one province may or may not be legal in another), I don’t blame someone for being confused. (And I wish like hell that Jim Flaherty would get moving on a single national securities regulator for Canada.)
As for RIM; NTP is what is commonly known as a “patent troll”; their original patents were so broad and so obvious, they should never have been granted. More to the point, NTP never tried to commercialize their patents – they didn’t try to license them or produce a product. They just waited for someone else to develop the same concept independently – NTP never proved that RIM accessed their patents – and then sued. Go to “slashdot.org” and search for NTP and RIM for a more in-depth discussion. It’s worth noting that RIM won a number of cases during the battle, but NTP won the last one, and RIM finally decided to stop fighting and settle.
Would RIM have been smarter to settle when the suit was first brought by NTP? Obviously; it would have cost them a lot less, both in legal fees, and the final payment. But I can understand people getting emotional when they’ve done a lot of work to produce a pretty good product, and then some blood-sucking lawyer tries to horn in on their success. Unfortunately, emotional decisions in business are rarely optimal.
Finally, I again encourage you to visit slashdot, and search for “US patent office”. The claims that are being processed by an understaffed and over-worked USPO are unbelievable. Amazon wants to patent the “one-click” checkout button. Here’s another example from slashdot:
“eBay has been involved in a legal dispute over the use of its popular “Buy it Now” button, which allows consumers to skip the bidding and purchase items on eBay directly. The patent suit was filed six years ago by MercExchange L.L.C. In May of 2003, a jury ruled in MercExchange’s favor finding that eBay did in fact infringe on the patent, but in 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that MercExchange was not automatically entitled to a court order blocking the offending service, essentially handing a victory down to patent reform advocates. However, the ruling by the Supreme Court does not affect the final judgment of the court.”
Now, here’s the kicker: MercExchange was granted a patent for on-line auctions in 1999. e-bay was founded in 1995. They’d been in business for four years, but the USPTO did not consider that “prior art”, which is usually the way patents are invalidated.
So you can see why many US firms think the whole patent system is completely f***ed. Note that in Europe, the EU is considering invalidating all software patents, and relying on copyright instead. (That is, if you want to create your own code for a “Buy Now” button, that’s fine, but if you exactly copy e-Bay’s code, that’s a copyright violation.)
Cheers,
Kevin
@Mark in Ottawa:
Why not just call me a fa**ot? Or just stick out your tongue?
@everyone else:
I’ve been sized up as a patriot by that fellow. Watch out and take note.
i) Conrad Black = FELON
ii) Conrad Black = HATER OF CANADA
iii) Conrad Black = FLIGHT RISK
iv) Conrad Black = A ‘LORD’ NO MORE
v) Conrad Black = JUST ONE OF THE GUYS IN CELLBL0OCK ‘A’
@leftdog:
Your earlier demonstration that Conrad Black is a “hater of Canada” misses two points:
a) The U.K. and Canada are allies, and are currently fighting in the same overall war. If Conrad Black is to be a U.K. patriot, he must support U.K. troops, who do support Canadian troops – and vice versa.
b) The Head of State of Canada and the Head of the U.K. State are the same person, HM Queen Elizabeth II. She is, if only titularly, Commander-in-Chief of Canada’s troops as well as the U.K.’s.
This being noted, I should tell you something. A while ago, I tried to make a name for myself in abstract mathematics, and made logical missteps all the time, thank to pursuing a single line of reasoning that contradicted other parts of the field. In retrospect, my fatal flaw was an unconscious attitude that assumed that sustained preparative memory work made me a ‘do-nothing’ type. This attitude ended up costing me by making my batting average lousy, and me an evident tyro. The points I made above are in the spirit of how I was corrected by less ignorant people in the field back then.
The argument that you’re presenting – that some people are “better than patriot” – is an interesting one because it’s unusual for a left-winger. Because it’s not groupthink-based, it makes you stick out, though. I’d watch my back if I were you.
To get back to your most recent post:
a) there’s an appeal about to be pending.
b) Conrad won’t lose his title. It’s customary in the U.K. to not strip a convicted felon with a title of his/her title. So, he may not rate that much respect anymore, but officially he’ll still be a life peer no matter what the final outcome is.
“Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
Proverbs 16:18
(King James Version)
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.”
JESUS
Matthew (19:24)
I wonder if Conrad himself has been told those. Myself, I would add another, more extended one:
“19. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘”Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'”
“21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Romans 12:19 & 21, NRSV. It cuts to the heart of the “much maligned” factor.