
Ex-Professor Says Dismissed Racketeering Case Is Still ‘Devastating’ - mtg
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/09/business/joy-laskar-georgia-tech-racketeering-case.html
======
srtjstjsj
The original story explains how this was likely a jealous colleague at GT, who
called in the state guns to get revenge. The prosecutor's extreme delay and
then "accidentally" losing the case on a "miscalculation" of statue of
limitations was because they had no case and were too embarrassed to admit it.

If there were justice here, charges would be brought against whoever in the
university demanded this malicious false prosecution.

~~~
jacquesm
Fortunately academia is populated by self-less souls searching for absolute
truths only.

I always wonder why the jealousy is so strong in those circles, it's not as if
there is much at stake other than reputation and ego. I've seen quite a few
examples of this in real life by now and it's much worse than industry in some
ways.

~~~
tacon
"Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."

[1] [http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-
politics/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-politics/)

------
rl3
> _For one thing, a state grand jury didn’t indict him on racketeering charges
> until late December 2014, more than four and a half years after the raids on
> Dr. Laskar’s home and office in May 2010._

The delay in indictment aside, it appears they've been holding his personal
devices hostage for nearly seven years now.

> _He had previously remained silent to avoid antagonizing prosecutors, who
> still hold family items with sentimental value, like a laptop with the only
> copies of childhood photographs of Dr. Laskar’s three daughters and an
> unfinished novel by his wife._

Theoretically, not speaking up offers the prosecutors more incentive to retain
possession, especially if they know that's the reason for the silence.

Device seizure without prompt imaging and return of the hardware is bullshit
in all but the most grievous cases (e.g. terrorism).

While many people who have been through extended litigation or criminal
proceedings just want it to end, it seems like this guy was railroaded pretty
hard.

Does he have cause to sue the state, university, or both?

~~~
dllthomas
> Device seizure without prompt imaging and return of the hardware is bullshit
> in all but the most grievous cases (e.g. terrorism).

I don't think grievousness alone should be enough. Refusal to return the
devices should also be predicated on some sort of substantiated belief that
returning the devices would lead to some sort of harm. Possibly the case in
your terrorism example; clearly not, here.

------
kt9
> He started chip companies on the side, which Georgia Tech encouraged, eager
> to see successful university spinoffs that had showered riches and prestige
> on Stanford, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other top
> computer engineering schools.

And now there will be no more academics at Georgia Tech working to spinoff
companies that shower riches on their benefactor universities. The bureaucracy
strikes again and kills innovation.

~~~
Spooky23
That's probably necessary in public universities.

In my region, there are two institutions with leadership that let power and
influence in these areas get to their heads. First, there's private RPI, where
the president is basically looting the school for a decade, but the board does
nothing. Then look at the sad tale of SUNY Poly, where its president did some
pretty amazing things along with some... other things that would have been
survivable in a private environment but a death sentence in the public sector.

Unless you're a political person with the ability to stay at "arms length"
with campaign funds and PACs, you cannot work for government entities and be
safely involved with any significant business activity that is potentially
related to your public employment. Even if you're able to do so, any misstep,
greedy mistake, illegal act, or other screw up will be exponentially more
dangerous.

Linkage:

RPI: [https://news.vice.com/article/americas-highest-paid-
college-...](https://news.vice.com/article/americas-highest-paid-college-
president-is-dragging-her-school-into-crippling-debt)

SUNY Poly: [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/nyregion/physicist-
in-...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/nyregion/physicist-in-albany-
corruption-case-was-a-geek-with-big-goals.html)

~~~
azernik
UC Berkeley seems to handle this process just fine.

~~~
castellar
Could you or someone possibly elaborate on this? Why does UC Berkeley have so
much better luck with startups and spin-off companies/technologies when
compared to other public institutions?

~~~
azernik
It has an institutional culture (in the bureaucracy) of nurturing those
startups. In particular, it has a very clear and permissive procedure for
transferring work to private companies (see [1], under Outgoing MTA). You tell
the university what materials (including IP) you want to use in your company,
and the university negotiates a direct quid pro quo.

The Georgia Tech process, by contrast, seems totally ad hoc and amateur. "You
can take stuff for free up to a point, as long as you agree to certain
investment agreements with the university, and if you step over one of our
unclear lines we will slap you down."

[1] [http://ipira.berkeley.edu/material-transfer-
agreements](http://ipira.berkeley.edu/material-transfer-agreements)

------
fake-name
> He had previously remained silent to avoid antagonizing prosecutors, who
> still hold family items with sentimental value, like a laptop with the only
> copies of childhood photographs of Dr. Laskar’s three daughters and an
> unfinished novel by his wife.

Like, what the fuck? Why do prosecutors have such broad control over something
that should be held by a independent party?

The justice system is so fucked.

~~~
emiliobumachar
There should be a right to copies of one's seized electronics' contents if not
returned in a reasonable period.

Also, what is the justification for keeping them after the case was dismissed?

------
a3n
> “This wouldn’t have happened at M.I.T. or Carnegie Mellon,” said Dr.
> Ricketts, "... they would basically have handled it internally."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz)

"On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested by MIT police on state breaking-and-
entering charges, ... download academic journal articles systematically from
JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT."

It was handled and concluded in a very un-internal way.

~~~
URSpider94
Totally different situation.

~~~
wfo
Yes, because Aaron was not faculty.

------
lastofus
> Last October, a judge tossed out the state’s case before a trial, ruling
> that the five-year statute of limitations had expired on the misdeeds that
> it had accused Dr. Laskar of committing.

The way it ended didn't help. It would have been better if it were thrown out
because it was obviously BS, or if it went to trial and he were exonerated.

------
georgeburdell
Glad to see this finally got dismissed. I was a Ph.D student in the department
when this happened and it caused a lot of discontent among the faculty.
Perhaps related, GT's royalty agreement is quite a bit less generous than
other schools known for their entrepreneurship, such as Stanford and MIT. This
and issues like Prof. Laskar's have had a negative impact on the rate at which
companies are started at the school.

~~~
Zhenya
Paging George Burdell

------
revelation
A state prosecutor missing the statute of limitations seems like a crass
professional misstep that should see them sanctioned.

------
laurentoget
Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the way this was investigated,
prosecuted and litigated by the state would not make me feel comfortable
investing in Georgia. This is a pretty sad story for Atlanta and its ambition
of becoming a center of technological innovation.

------
infocollector
Does anyone have a pointer to the details of this case that can be read?

------
x0x0
He was. Try reading the article.

He got off on statute of limitations.

~~~
jacquesm
No, he was never convicted. If you would please read the bloody title it says
'Dismissed Racketeering Case'.

No case, no conviction.

A direct citation from the article linked:

"Last October, a judge tossed out the state’s case before a trial"

~~~
x0x0
If you would read the judge's writing you'd notice he got off on a
technicality: statute of limitations. No-one not named Laskar disputes he took
that money. And he was, exactly as I said up post, charged with theft of the
$50k.

eg: [http://joylaskarstory.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/Laskar....](http://joylaskarstory.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/Laskar.-Order-for-dismissal.pdf)

~~~
jacquesm
I read that and my comment stands.

Whether you get off on the statute of limitations or not does not matter, what
matters is that there is no conviction, so you're simply _wrong_ but for some
reason you can't seem to move past that bit.

The rest of the case was not decided on its merits so you can't make
statements like the ones you made and not everybody that is charged with
something is guilty of it.

You will notice the very careful wording of that document including bits such
as 'alleged', 'purportedly' and 'can'.

In other words, had the case gone forward there is always a chance that there
would be a conviction, but since it did not we will simply never know.

But the judge leaves ample room for a case that would have been decided in the
defendants favor on other grounds than the one chosen, which is that they
simply waited too long.

And now it is up to you to decide why they waited that long.

Also, you keep claiming that he stole $50k, but the judge - rightly, in my
opinion - writes that that's not what he did. Let me cite the article you
linked:

"The question before the Court is what constituted the _alleged_ thefts: the
taking of the chips or the taking of Georgia Tech's money? Defendant's
technology was built from from microchips, not bank notes. What he
_purportedly_ stole from Georgia Tech was the microchips he (through Georgia
Tech) ordered from CMP.

Those chips rightfully belonged to Georgia Tech because Georgia Tech
ultimately, paid for them.

However, the University's payment for the merchandise is a collateral
consequence of the Defendant's _alleged_ theft, and a measure of the value of
the goods Defendant _allegedly_ stole. The Payment is not, however the 'theft'
that _allegedly_ occurred in this case."

In laymans terms that reads: The court decides that the theft _if there was
one_ was the chips, not the money and that the date when that happened is now
so far in the past that the case is dead crucially, without deciding whether
or not a theft _actually_ took place.

Since this whole case seems to have started with jealousy and people smearing
the defendant it is particularly ugly that you continue to write blatant un-
truths.

~~~
jack9
It's quite strange how people are both arguing that the prosecutor is blind to
justice (he was falsely accused, because he was not convicted, this is wrong!)
but also not blind when counting the particulars of associated circumstances.
I'm reminded of Aaron Hernandez being acquitted of murders, but convicted of
the murder of a witness to cover up the deaths. At some point you have to
rationalize that the law is not always correct and that goes both ways (for
the innocent and the guilty). I never found the "they weren't convicted"
argument much more weighty than the "they were convicted". He was probably
guilty, they just couldn't get their case together.

~~~
jacquesm
> He was probably guilty, they just couldn't get their case together.

That's why there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. If you can't get
your case together in an X amount of time that is the equivalent of not having
a case.

So, given that he wasn't convicted, _not_ guilty. You can't say that he
probably was guilty and not say that about every other person that ever got
acquitted, which is nonsense. So that claim simply does not hold up.

I agree with you that the law (or rather, justice) isn't correct and that this
goes both ways. So if you are already of that opinion then why negate it after
that by saying that he probably was guilty?

That's after all what courts are for.

~~~
jack9
> You can't say that he probably was guilty

I can and do, which is not nonsense applied to an infinite amount of
theoretical past cases. That's not relevant.

Cases aren't assembled just to get a conviction on 20 specific items
([http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-
th...](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-the-same-
offence.html)). US justice system is not about truth or even justice, but an
amalgamation of concerns and subject to the irregularities of reality (if key
witness X has a heart attack and dies, a case Y can fall apart).

I'm not subject to these concerns and limitations (which are both historical
and societal, without being strictly law-related). He was probably guilty (in
the moral, not legal sense if that's confusing anyone), based on what I have
read and seen. That's distinctly different from saying he did something wrong
or illegal or should be in jail or that it would be a public good to ignore.

~~~
jacquesm
> He was probably guilty (in the moral, not legal sense if that's confusing
> anyone), based on what I have read and seen.

Did you read or see something different than what I have read and seen?

Or did we read the same stuff but came to completely different conclusions?

Would you feel any different if the case had gone forward, had been decided on
its merits and the outcome would have been a 'not guilty' verdict?

------
x0x0
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Dude stole $50k then turned down a follow-
on investment, giving Georgia Tech a valid cause and motive to pursue his
criminal behavior.

~~~
jacquesm
I'll give you this to think about: If you stole $50K from some institution do
you honestly believe they would then offer you a follow on investment? And
then if you turn that 'offer' down that that would give valid cause and motive
to pursue for _criminal_ behavior?

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you steal from me I don't need further motive to pursue so the whole
'follow on investment' thing is utterly pointless.

And I would never demand to do a follow on investment in a company that I'm
alleging stole from me. That's ridiculous.

So either he stole and they should have pursued it there and then or they
should have dropped the matter. But to only pursue _after_ he turned them down
makes this look like a business deal gone sour and the whole criminal thing
just being tacked on as some kind of revenge.

I've had a similar thing happen to me once. A guy - who will remain nameless
but he was a German businessman - bought himself in for a small amount in a
company I had founded, then when he offered to buy another stake we refused.
The next thing we knew we were going to be sued for all kinds of infractions,
just a way to up the pressure from his position as a shareholder. This story
here has way too many parallels with that story to just believe GT outright.

And in that other story I happen to know exactly what happened. So, either
you're going to have to do a lot better to answer those two questions I asked
at the top of this comment or you're going to have to admit that it really
doesn't make any sense.

To me it simply sounds like GT wanted a larger piece of the action and when
they were told to walk they came up with this theft story to up the pressure.

~~~
x0x0
Are you seriously claiming people have never let $50k slide as part of a
business deal, then when things have gotten acrimonious, pursed every
available avenue? Because I've seen it happen (well, more like $30k, but this
just used for personal stuff).

And he did steal the $50k -- notice on his website he nowhere refutes that
bit. It's blah blah blah GT invested (yes), he was in an incubator (yes), but
that doesn't make your GT funds for your academic work into your Sayana funds
for your Sayana work. And as mentioned elsewhere, everyone involved:
prosecutor, judge, GT, peers at GT, peers at other universities, ie everyone
without the last name Laskar, agree he stole at minimum that $50k.

------
x0x0
Two suggestions on why this happened (from [1])

    
    
       Georgia Tech auditors accused Dr. Laskar of stealing as much as $1.5 million 
       to benefit Sayana. In the end, the faculty committee determined that Georgia 
       Tech had paid for $50,000 worth of chips in 2007 that were sent to a Korean 
       chip research institute to satisfy a contractual obligation that Sayana had 
       with it.
       
       Dr. Laskar argues that any chips paid for by Georgia Tech and sent to the 
       Korean institute originally served academic purposes. He added that the 
       Koreans did not keep the chips, returning them to Georgia Tech after its 
       engineers verified that they worked. Dr. Laskar said that this was a common 
       practice with other companies at the chip design center and that Sayana had 
       the rights to do it because of its licensing deal with Georgia Tech.
       
       The accusations followed an episode at Georgia Tech two years earlier. The 
       university had been caught up in a scandal that received wide publicity in 
       Georgia, in which employees were charged with making personal purchases on 
       Georgia Tech credit cards, known as procurement cards.
       

And note that other professors agree "Laskar 'pushed the edges' of what seemed
ethical".

Second,

    
    
       With Sayana, Dr. Laskar said he didn’t take the informal path that faculty 
       start-ups at Georgia Tech are encouraged to follow. While he accepted money 
       from a start-up incubator financed by Georgia Tech, he declined later rounds 
       of funding because it would have involved giving up equity in Sayana, 
       allowing the university to install board members and professional managers 
       of their choosing. “I’m sure that torqued people,” Dr. Laskar said.
    

The article [1] quotes some university employee saying that this hasn't
affected university spin-outs which seems laughable. If Georgia Tech was
willing to pursue a rainmaker like this, well, Stanford et al will be happy to
have them.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/technology/reaching-for-
si...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/technology/reaching-for-silicon-
valley.html)

~~~
jacquesm
It's funny how the first round of funding apparently more or less requires you
to accept the second otherwise you're 'unethical'. That's just plainly wrong.
Either you get to decide round-by-round what the best option for you and your
company is or it should simply be one round.

To give a bit of seed capital, wait to see what flies (and thus is very much
de-risked) and then to force an additional round requiring dilution and board
members that may simply be luggage to haul around should be up to the present
day shareholders. The University is playing a dirty game here.

A friend of mine was in a similar situation, first round of funding was
peanuts, second round - after substantial input in time, funds and efforts of
the founders - on much less good terms (and effectively still peanuts)
including board members and so on.

~~~
huac
These are known as 'pro-rata' rights, which entitle earlier stage investors to
participate in later rounds in order to maintain their stake in the company.
These are relatively well-established rights that you will likely find in most
VC term sheets.

Pro-rata rights are, to some extent, a reward for the risk that the investors
take in investing in a very early stage startup. They also ensure that early-
stage investors remain invested in your company; without a pro-rata right, the
absolute gain of your company exiting at $100M vs $500M is much lower for the
investor with a small stake. In a similar vein, the protections protect the
investor from being diluted out of any significant stake in your company.

~~~
jacquesm
Sure, I'm familiar with that. But there is no such thing as a demand that a
later round actually takes place.

That's up to the shareholders and if they don't want to raise another round
because they don't like the terms then they don't.

It's not an obligation.

~~~
huac
Ok, yeah, demanding subsequent rounds against founders' wishes is pretty mean.
I guess you usually need investor approval to raise further rounds, but this
would be taking that right of refusal much farther.

