Theranos devices ran “null protocol” to skip actual demo for investors(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Theranos devices ran “null protocol” to skip actual demo for investors
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/theranos-devices-ran-demo-apps-that-blocked-error-messages-during-investor-pitches/
71 comments
> Having scripted demos that hide error messages is not really sketchy. It could be part of a fraud, or it could not, but it's not really telling.
They pricked investors fingers and implied that a Theranos machine would process the sample, but then they secretly ran the sample on a competitor's machine in another room:
> In demos of the company’s technology, investors would have their fingers pricked for testing alongside one of Theranos’ proprietary devices, but the actual test would be run in a lab away from prying eyes.
This would be the equivalent of a SaaS company setting up an API that just passed the calls through to a competitor's API, but then telling investors that their own platform was operational. You can run the pass-through API long enough to fake demos and raise money, but it's still fraud if you mislead investors to believe that you have the platform operational.
They weren't just hiding error messages or smoothing over rough edges. They were architecting fraudulent claims to investors.
They pricked investors fingers and implied that a Theranos machine would process the sample, but then they secretly ran the sample on a competitor's machine in another room:
> In demos of the company’s technology, investors would have their fingers pricked for testing alongside one of Theranos’ proprietary devices, but the actual test would be run in a lab away from prying eyes.
This would be the equivalent of a SaaS company setting up an API that just passed the calls through to a competitor's API, but then telling investors that their own platform was operational. You can run the pass-through API long enough to fake demos and raise money, but it's still fraud if you mislead investors to believe that you have the platform operational.
They weren't just hiding error messages or smoothing over rough edges. They were architecting fraudulent claims to investors.
Pretty sure a non-zero number of AI/ML startups were actually just feeding data to humans, at least at the start.
There was a story earlier this year about a startup that had a government contract to detect crime using AI, but turned out not to actually have any AI technology, instead appearing to pass tasks to humans: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkd7pk/banjo-ai-surveillance...
This is not a problem if you're transparent about what you're doing. If you say, the AI/ML will do this, but we're still perfecting the algorithm so we have humans assist it right now. No problem.
There was just a report on HN about Expensify doing that. I don't know if they switched to AI, or if it's still just people.
“At least at the start” is possibly ok if you have a path forward to get to your goal. Theranos had no path.
> “At least at the start” is possibly ok if you have a path forward to get to your goal.
Only if you're not misrepresenting your capabilities to investors or customers.
Only if you're not misrepresenting your capabilities to investors or customers.
It's tricky. If you're saying what you will do, and show it as it should look, while you continue to develop it really working, and it's not endangering health like in the case of Theranos, I have a hard time seeing the issue.
I've never been in a situation where it literally didn't work though over time, and before customer usage.
I've never been in a situation where it literally didn't work though over time, and before customer usage.
can confirm a few examples. the key is at the start though, they all made it there over some time.
The first iPhone demo involved bringing in a portable cell tower, hardcoding signal strength to always show 5 bars, and repeatedly swapping out phones throughout the demo because using one through the whole presentation would have caused it to crash[0].
I believe Theranos was worse in many ways, but running misleading demos to drum up hype sounds pretty par for the SV course.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-s..., https://www.techspot.com/news/54246-former-apple-engineer-re...
I believe Theranos was worse in many ways, but running misleading demos to drum up hype sounds pretty par for the SV course.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-s..., https://www.techspot.com/news/54246-former-apple-engineer-re...
Bringing in a COW is standard course when you have a large number of people in one place, even in 2007.
These kinds of responses infuriate me. I also get so frustrated by so much of the media taking the line of "This was just Silicon Valley's 'Fake it til you make it' culture taken to the extreme."
Nonsense. I've worked in startups my entire 20+ year career, and while we've certainly spun or promoted things to the extreme, the line of "outright lying" was never gray.
Take for example the initial iPhone demo by Steve Jobs. It's been mentioned many times before that the demo had to be run in a specific, exact order, or else the OS would crash. That's fine, but nothing in those demos were faked. It all did exactly what he demoed, live. It would have been a much different story, if, for example, Jobs just demoed a video with surreptitious pause and play buttons. That would have been fraud, and that's much less than what Theranos faked here.
Nonsense. I've worked in startups my entire 20+ year career, and while we've certainly spun or promoted things to the extreme, the line of "outright lying" was never gray.
Take for example the initial iPhone demo by Steve Jobs. It's been mentioned many times before that the demo had to be run in a specific, exact order, or else the OS would crash. That's fine, but nothing in those demos were faked. It all did exactly what he demoed, live. It would have been a much different story, if, for example, Jobs just demoed a video with surreptitious pause and play buttons. That would have been fraud, and that's much less than what Theranos faked here.
> It would have been a much different story, if, for example, Jobs just demoed a video with surreptitious pause and play buttons. That would have been fraud
Not really.
I mean the iPhone did hit the shelves not long after that demo. So anyone on the street could try one out (they had physical demo units in store). Theranos wouldn't let anyone just play with their machine.
But we're talking about a company that has a track record at shipping OSes (Apple). Even if they faked the iPhone demo, it would still have been believable that Apple could write an OS for a portable device.
Not really.
I mean the iPhone did hit the shelves not long after that demo. So anyone on the street could try one out (they had physical demo units in store). Theranos wouldn't let anyone just play with their machine.
But we're talking about a company that has a track record at shipping OSes (Apple). Even if they faked the iPhone demo, it would still have been believable that Apple could write an OS for a portable device.
>These kinds of responses infuriate me. I also get so frustrated by so much of the media taking the line of "This was just Silicon Valley's 'Fake it til you make it' culture taken to the extreme."
Yeah, me too. In this case, Theranos was saying they were going to demo their revolutionary lab testing process. They would take the blood sample from the participants being demoed to, put them in a cartridge that then went into the machine, and the machine would light up and start making noises. They would lead the people out of the room and other employees would secretly grab the blood from the machine and process it with a very labor intensive manual process (normally taking a couple of hours). When the participants were given their results, the implication was that Theranos' revolutionary machine did all the work.
Yeah, me too. In this case, Theranos was saying they were going to demo their revolutionary lab testing process. They would take the blood sample from the participants being demoed to, put them in a cartridge that then went into the machine, and the machine would light up and start making noises. They would lead the people out of the room and other employees would secretly grab the blood from the machine and process it with a very labor intensive manual process (normally taking a couple of hours). When the participants were given their results, the implication was that Theranos' revolutionary machine did all the work.
> but nothing in those demos were faked
The signal strength was hardcoded to always show 5 bars during the demo, but I think your overall point is valid.
The signal strength was hardcoded to always show 5 bars during the demo, but I think your overall point is valid.
Next you’ll tell us they don’t actually take all pictures of iPhones at exactly 9:41
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/apple-products-time-941-pho...
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/apple-products-time-941-pho...
That's hilarious - do you know if they still do this?
I don't know to what degree, but both manufacturers and carriers absolutely do like to mess with reported signal strength.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18737008
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18737008
I think having scripted demos that hide error messages is sketchy, if you're representing the demo as "being your product". You're saying "this is my product" and you're showing something that "isn't your product".
Doesn't mean I'm against demos - but normally you can come up with a slice (or two if you're lucky) through it that genuinely works and shows for a representative scenario (and if your arm's twisted you just say that with more money, you can support more scenarios).
Doesn't mean I'm against demos - but normally you can come up with a slice (or two if you're lucky) through it that genuinely works and shows for a representative scenario (and if your arm's twisted you just say that with more money, you can support more scenarios).
They literally HID the lab that had the actual devices from FDA inspectors. In a B-movie style "slide a cabinet in front of the door" style deception.
Don't try to handwave that away as "the sum of promotional practices". That's abject fraud, not "faking it til you make it".
Don't try to handwave that away as "the sum of promotional practices". That's abject fraud, not "faking it til you make it".
They were telling investors the tests were actually running on machines though which is factually untrue and were lying in materials sent to investors about the testing done on devices and the validation of those tests. This is far more than just having a narrow slice demo and saying "this is a demo of what X will be like." What they were doing was directly lying about what the machines were doing and what they were capable of doing, beyond just lying to investors they pushed it out to the public using shoddy validation techniques which gave people incorrect test results.
>I don't see any massive red flags in the stuff reported.
did you see the part where they ran fraudulent tests on actual cancer patients?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-patients-hurt-by-theranos-1...
did you see the part where they ran fraudulent tests on actual cancer patients?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-patients-hurt-by-theranos-1...
You may do scripted demos or avoiding problematic errors. But usually you will have some kind of path to get where you want to be.
From what I have read Theranos had nothing. They had no idea how they could make their machines work. There was no new technology or new insight. They just lied blatantly.
That’s on a different level from the usual cheating people do at demos.
From what I have read Theranos had nothing. They had no idea how they could make their machines work. There was no new technology or new insight. They just lied blatantly.
That’s on a different level from the usual cheating people do at demos.
Theranos has better than nothing. They have patents!
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/theranos-inc
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/theranos-inc
You brought up Enron, so you should be very aware that " But fraud is more than the sum of promotional practices that can be taken retrospectively or without context as sign of wrongdoing." is the exact opposite of the legal strategy they used in Enron's prosecution. Specifically, they never tried to say any specific act was illegal, just the sum of all the acts.
Hiding error messages is one thing.
What about showcasing devices that pretended to work but then shipping the tests to be run in normal labs?
What about showcasing devices that pretended to work but then shipping the tests to be run in normal labs?
> What about showcasing devices that pretended to work but then shipping the tests to be run in normal labs?
They didn't even have any basic systems validation / quality management documentation, which is how they racked up their first FDA inspection violations.
This really should have been obvious to anyone doing due diligence in a regulated space (devices, pharma, etc.).
They didn't even have any basic systems validation / quality management documentation, which is how they racked up their first FDA inspection violations.
This really should have been obvious to anyone doing due diligence in a regulated space (devices, pharma, etc.).
After reading Bad Blood, I can't help but wonder if CVS spotted the scam and stayed away.
While the behavior is atrocious IMHO, the article doesn't say the tests were run in 'normal labs':
> the actual test would be run in a lab away from prying eyes
That lab could have been using a Theranos machine, but with errors displayed, etc.
> the actual test would be run in a lab away from prying eyes
That lab could have been using a Theranos machine, but with errors displayed, etc.
I try to be less judgmental and reactive than the norm about evaluating others’ actions, too, but I question whether the logic you are using to distance them from wrongdoing is really sound or necessary.
If they did a bunch of unethical stuff that adds up to fraud, as you agree, what does it matter if some individual actions, if you completely take them out of context, look at them through the right lens, and create a distinction between “unethical” and “bad,” aren’t necessarily bad? Maybe the reason no one is saying that is because no one is doing that, because it’s not relevant.
The individual actions are certainly sketchy, IMO. And red flags. Is there a definite semantic difference? It seems like splitting hairs. No single action by itself implies fraud, though significant acts of lying make a case.
Theranos’s level of deception is not the norm. Nor is it legal or ok.
You conclude by sort of saying you just aren’t going to focus on the misconduct aspect of things. But it is still there.
If they did a bunch of unethical stuff that adds up to fraud, as you agree, what does it matter if some individual actions, if you completely take them out of context, look at them through the right lens, and create a distinction between “unethical” and “bad,” aren’t necessarily bad? Maybe the reason no one is saying that is because no one is doing that, because it’s not relevant.
The individual actions are certainly sketchy, IMO. And red flags. Is there a definite semantic difference? It seems like splitting hairs. No single action by itself implies fraud, though significant acts of lying make a case.
Theranos’s level of deception is not the norm. Nor is it legal or ok.
You conclude by sort of saying you just aren’t going to focus on the misconduct aspect of things. But it is still there.
So, fraud is a set of crimes which require intent. Specifically, they require intent to either gain from dishonesty or to cause another to lose through your dishonesty.
Thus, dishonesty means you're skating on thin ice because a prosecutor only needs to show intent to gain (or for another to lose) and you're done. Much better to be honest and eliminate this whole thrust altogether. Intent to gain without dishonesty isn't a crime and would be generally seen as admirable.
Thus, dishonesty means you're skating on thin ice because a prosecutor only needs to show intent to gain (or for another to lose) and you're done. Much better to be honest and eliminate this whole thrust altogether. Intent to gain without dishonesty isn't a crime and would be generally seen as admirable.
I have read Bad Blood [0] about 3 years ago and the title describes only one part of the fraud going on in Theranos. Some more red flags (probably par for the course in Silicon Valley)
- Abusive bosses and people fired for questioning even the basic things
- Balwani ( her boyfriend/partner ) being a dick and having an unusual sway over the company
- A culture of fear ( compare to living in a cult) etc etc.
The clincher is that unlike most products which hopefully aren't life threatening if they don't work, this culture led to covering up defects with devices that directly affect the course of treatment and probably are life threatening if they are inaccurate. This to me is the ultimate fraud in a startup.
[0] https://www.amazon.in/Bad-Blood-Secrets-Silicon-Startup-eboo...
- Abusive bosses and people fired for questioning even the basic things
- Balwani ( her boyfriend/partner ) being a dick and having an unusual sway over the company
- A culture of fear ( compare to living in a cult) etc etc.
The clincher is that unlike most products which hopefully aren't life threatening if they don't work, this culture led to covering up defects with devices that directly affect the course of treatment and probably are life threatening if they are inaccurate. This to me is the ultimate fraud in a startup.
[0] https://www.amazon.in/Bad-Blood-Secrets-Silicon-Startup-eboo...
If Theranos ultimately produced equipment that did what the demo demonstrated, would this demo then be fraud, or not?
That's a legit question.
Where is the hard demarcation between 'fraud' and 'controlled demo'? Because the ability to follow through with something is fairly intangible.
Tesla could have gone bankrupt at several points. Would that have made some of Musk's unfulfilled claims (and actual unfulfilled orders) a form of fraud?
I think Theranos is effectively a fraud, but I think it's also based on a kind of self-delusion derived from what is otherwise kind of common activity.
It would be ideal to have maybe a bit of regulatory concern over this for medical devices, i.e. if you can't make anything up in a demo, anything hidden amounts to a material lack of disclosure of something serious.
That's a legit question.
Where is the hard demarcation between 'fraud' and 'controlled demo'? Because the ability to follow through with something is fairly intangible.
Tesla could have gone bankrupt at several points. Would that have made some of Musk's unfulfilled claims (and actual unfulfilled orders) a form of fraud?
I think Theranos is effectively a fraud, but I think it's also based on a kind of self-delusion derived from what is otherwise kind of common activity.
It would be ideal to have maybe a bit of regulatory concern over this for medical devices, i.e. if you can't make anything up in a demo, anything hidden amounts to a material lack of disclosure of something serious.
> Tesla could have gone bankrupt at several points. Would that have made some of Musk's unfulfilled claims (and actual unfulfilled orders) a form of fraud?
I think there is a pretty clear difference between non-performance due to bankruptcy (which is essentially "we haven't been able to make the tech work profitably and have run out of money") and bankruptcy due to non-performance ("we've run out of money because we haven't been able to make the tech work").
I think there is a pretty clear difference between non-performance due to bankruptcy (which is essentially "we haven't been able to make the tech work profitably and have run out of money") and bankruptcy due to non-performance ("we've run out of money because we haven't been able to make the tech work").
Not sure if I agree. Tesla would have run out of money essentially trying to make the 'tech work' i.e. a truly viable electric car for the masses i.e. right price point, range, quality etc..
Is it common for tech employees to see fraud going on in front of their eyes for more than ten years and not say something, or at least stop enabling the company ?
Why specifically tech employees ? Are other industries free of fraud ?
Because they are the hottest at this point
[deleted]
Merits aside, I predict Holmes is too rich and pretty to be convicted of anything.
yes? they're a terrible company run by terrible people.
were
and thank god for that. can you imagine theranos doing covid tests?
I won't name names in case I'm wrong but there are apparently some cowboy companies doing exactly this in the UK.
Huge numbers of contracts were outsourced with no review to anyone available (read: nepotism) with a phone number.
Huge numbers of contracts were outsourced with no review to anyone available (read: nepotism) with a phone number.
[deleted]
The Germans would call this schadenfreude to the founder of Fox News perhaps:
Meanwhile, investors were given binders that made hyperbolic claims about Theranos’ diagnostic technology. One binder sent to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who invested $125 million, said, “Theranos offers tests with the highest level of accuracy.” The company’s technology, it also said, “generates significantly higher integrity data than currently possible.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
Meanwhile, investors were given binders that made hyperbolic claims about Theranos’ diagnostic technology. One binder sent to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who invested $125 million, said, “Theranos offers tests with the highest level of accuracy.” The company’s technology, it also said, “generates significantly higher integrity data than currently possible.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
Ads for new phones typically read "Screen images simulated". No one should blame Theranos for using carefully configured images in their marketing brochures - if the graphic designer used actual photos at all instead of CAD renders and simulated screenshots, you'd expect them to clear a fault or get a passing test before hitting the shutter. If there were some machines visible from the front lobby, if they were live and just running "demo mode" that's basically the same as putting a sticker with a passing test over the display.
I give Apple a ton of credit for running with real demos, as shown by the fact that they fail, like the FaceID snafu:
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/9/12/16296912/a...
Or Steve Jobs' wifi disconnection:
https://www.cnet.com/videos/steve-jobs-demo-fail/
A lot of Apple demos include simulated marketing screen sequences too, but if they had 'lip synced' these parts I don't think anyone would have noticed. Clearly, they didn't, or else those two failures would not have happened.
Regardless, I don't think Theranos running a "null protocol" or "demo mode" is particularly surprising. You can't blame them for wanting to avoid something like the machine blurting out "You Are HIV Positive" during a demo. I do think there's a difference between a marketing demo where you expect to be lied to and a "this is a standard production machine running an actual test" lie. The question is which side of that divide the Theranos investor demos fell on.
I give Apple a ton of credit for running with real demos, as shown by the fact that they fail, like the FaceID snafu:
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/9/12/16296912/a...
Or Steve Jobs' wifi disconnection:
https://www.cnet.com/videos/steve-jobs-demo-fail/
A lot of Apple demos include simulated marketing screen sequences too, but if they had 'lip synced' these parts I don't think anyone would have noticed. Clearly, they didn't, or else those two failures would not have happened.
Regardless, I don't think Theranos running a "null protocol" or "demo mode" is particularly surprising. You can't blame them for wanting to avoid something like the machine blurting out "You Are HIV Positive" during a demo. I do think there's a difference between a marketing demo where you expect to be lied to and a "this is a standard production machine running an actual test" lie. The question is which side of that divide the Theranos investor demos fell on.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for this argument if the Theranos machines were actually capable of doing the tests that they were pretending to run.
I think there's a world of difference between a) simulating a technology that a company really can provide just to ensure that things run smoothly for the test and b) pretending to offer a technology that, in fact, the company couldn't provide at all.
I think there's a world of difference between a) simulating a technology that a company really can provide just to ensure that things run smoothly for the test and b) pretending to offer a technology that, in fact, the company couldn't provide at all.
The difference- and one of the key things that makes this fraud- is intent. Theranos took blood from potential investors, told them it was their real lab results for their blood panel workup, except it was a fake script they have intentionally rigged to spit out dummy results as they knew the product would fail.
There's a massive qualitative difference here. If you're making something that is touted to be a breakthrough technology, you need to be actually doing it!
It is well-established from the history of hardware and software engineering that crashing bugs and glitches can be removed from a system through basic engineering. No one looks at a device that has some error messages and occasional crashes and says "Those crashes and errors are probably impossible to fix".
Theranos claimed to be doing a thing which everyone else in the field said was physically impossible (or at least physically impractical without an enormous nanotech breakthrough). Pretending that you're doing that thing, without actually having ever really done it, is indeed fraud.
It is well-established from the history of hardware and software engineering that crashing bugs and glitches can be removed from a system through basic engineering. No one looks at a device that has some error messages and occasional crashes and says "Those crashes and errors are probably impossible to fix".
Theranos claimed to be doing a thing which everyone else in the field said was physically impossible (or at least physically impractical without an enormous nanotech breakthrough). Pretending that you're doing that thing, without actually having ever really done it, is indeed fraud.
Fun fact:
Steve Jobs' demo for the original macintosh was actually done with a bit of cheating:
"Once we integrated all the pieces together, the demo didn't come close to be able to run on a standard Macintosh. Fortunately, we had a prototype of a 512K Mac in the lab, so we decided to cheat a little (there were only two in existence at the time) and use that for the demo, which made things fit."
https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
Steve Jobs' demo for the original macintosh was actually done with a bit of cheating:
"Once we integrated all the pieces together, the demo didn't come close to be able to run on a standard Macintosh. Fortunately, we had a prototype of a 512K Mac in the lab, so we decided to cheat a little (there were only two in existence at the time) and use that for the demo, which made things fit."
https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
If you prick the investor's fingers and use their blood, are you simulating? It seems to be claiming to actually analyze the results.
It depends on what they told the investors: 'This is the real thing', or 'this is a simulation of how it will seem to customers'.
Truth is simple to communicate.
It depends on what they told the investors: 'This is the real thing', or 'this is a simulation of how it will seem to customers'.
Truth is simple to communicate.
It depends on what you are demonstrating. I recently worked on a very legit medical device. It has a demo mode that shows off the product UI. It is 100% clear that there is no real sample and no real reagents in the machine.
Note the article said the demo mode "would not analyze the sample." The article goes on to say that real blood samples were used in these demos. Not the same thing at all.
Note the article said the demo mode "would not analyze the sample." The article goes on to say that real blood samples were used in these demos. Not the same thing at all.
The difference is that Apple made actual computers that worked, while Theranos' whole product was just literally a lie
Everything is a lie until it isn’t. Case in point: Tesla
This is not true. It doesn't even make sense. Pithy comments generally don't describe the real world.
"We are in development and do not yet have a working product" - Not a lie
"We have finished development and have a working product ready for patients" - Lie
"We are in development and do not yet have a working product" - Not a lie
"We have finished development and have a working product ready for patients" - Lie
Plenty of stuff was never a lie (look at the history of the nuclear bomb. Secrecy, but no lies on performance.) Meanwhile, plenty of stuff has always been a lie (check out nuclear fusion power.)
Apple's demos were (and presumably still are) using known hardware on a known happy path. The path is tested extensively. It's only outside forces (wifi, automatic reenabling of lock screens) that mar them.
If you want to really admire someone's balls, look at Bill Gates taking a BSoD to the face showing off Win95.
If you want to really admire someone's balls, look at Bill Gates taking a BSoD to the face showing off Win95.
and "that must be why we're not shipping Windows 98 yet."
https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/20/windows_98_comdex_bso...
https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/20/windows_98_comdex_bso...
It's funny you mention Apple and "screen images simulated" ads.
It's because Apple was forced to add this because people complained that their visuals were misleading in ads.
It's because Apple was forced to add this because people complained that their visuals were misleading in ads.
I’d love a source for this.
[deleted]
Shark eyes.
How does she have money for her defense lawyers? All her money was given back, no?
Her former lawyers for a civil case did claim she couldn't pay them. Though I wouldn't be surprised if she has insurance policies that cover some of her legal fees. And her husband is rich.
I'm convinced based on what I know that Theranos engaged in deliberate fraud. But fraud is more than the sum of promotional practices that can be taken retrospectively or without context as sign of wrongdoing.
Having scripted demos that hide error messages is not really sketchy. It could be part of a fraud, or it could not, but it's not really telling.
I say this because we often see popular ethical judgements where it's made out that there is a clear line between good and bad and that because the key players were unethical, they just did a bunch of bad things. I don't see it that way. There are lots of individual small judgements, most of which could be completely benign, but that add up to a fraud in the bigger picture. It probably makes sense as part of a body of evidence in a trial, but it's not really as sensational as the tabloids would like it to be.
Incidentally, I think that Theranos and Enron are basically the same story (at least Bad Blood and The Smartest Guys in the Room are the same book). And the root cause in both is not direct lack of scruples, but believing that ideas are what's important and execution doesn't matter. The lesson to me, is that a good way to get into trouble you cant get out of (and both of these stories resulted in real people taking their lives) is to think that details don't matter and a good idea is all you need.