727 Driver:
I didn't write the LSAT, because I majored in accounting, while taking the required law courses and a few extra due to personal interest.
Yes, there is an electronic signature, and I'm sure Mr. Hill signed a confidentiality agreement. It's like certain training bonds, or a non-competition agreement. In a lot of cases they aren't worth the paper their written on once they get to court.
As far as Mr. Hill cutting a deal, it won't be neccessary as WJ has already admitted they accessed the info.
Yes I know the difference between the SABRE and employee system. WJ just happened to get the loads which Joe public doesn't have access too. Yes, I've said WJ will get their wrists slapped to the tune of a couple of million. No question. But in the end, big deal. AC is simply making a bigger deal out of all this just to give WJ some bad press more than anything else. You know, take off some of the shine that has driven AC nuts for over 8 years.
Any court will determine that 10 months of WJ hacking has nothing to do with AC's financial and numerous other troubles. 10 years from now this whole hacking thing will be a trivial pursuit question, WJ will be the dominant carrier in the Nation, and AC will probably be another question in the game.
And as a side note, can you honestly tell me that Milton and his cronies at AC would not have jumped all over the same WJ info, given the same opportunity. They love predatory pricing practices, and you know they would have loved the chance to stick it to WJ. They are just pissed WJ did it first.
Pie Lot
Air Canada goes after Westjet CEO
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
quote="Pie Lot"]727 Driver:
“Yes, there is an electronic signature, and I'm sure Mr. Hill signed a confidentiality agreement. It's like certain training bonds, or a non-competition agreement. In a lot of cases they aren't worth the paper their written on once they get to court.”
If by electronic signature you are referring to "Conditions of Use" then it was not in place when WJ hacked the site. It is in place now.
“As far as Mr. Hill cutting a deal, it won't be necessary, as WJ has already admitted they accessed the info.”
Mr Hill's problems go deeper then WJ admitting guilt it all depends on what he did with the information and what he has told or is going to tell the court. Of course his memory will be refreshed by what the forensic accountant discovers. Think Martha Stewart and the mess she's in by telling a little white lie.
“Any court will determine that 10 months of WJ hacking has nothing to do with AC's financial and numerous other troubles.”
I don't think so as your argument is largely irrelevant. The court is only interested in all financial damages that occurred after the event. I will be surprised if the court widens the scope of interest beyond this event.
As far as AC is concerned I add the following article for your consideration.
Low cost airlines!
Open any major newspaper, listen to any financial report, or read any number of Web sites offering travel advice and you'll be sure to hear about the demise of the major network air-carriers. For years, travel pundits have proclaimed that the economy airlines (Southwest, JetBlue, AirTran Airways, Frontier Airlines, and Independence Air) are the Darwinian equivalent of natural selection.
Well, it is time to call a spade a spade.
Even though the low frills mode of transportation has been glamorized in the media as the future of travel - not unlike the way they described dot-coms as the future economy a few years ago - these companies can't deliver the value proposition.
And value is what travelers are really looking for.
You know, the four Cs: cost, convenience, choice, and comfort. Strict adherence to low-cost is not as relevant as affordability and lifestyle choice.
The basic assumption of the economic carriers' business model is that people will accept any level of service as long as it is cheap. That's where the misunderstanding begins.
Economy carriers do not offer the best way to travel, nor do they offer the
cheapest. Typically, economy carriers over-promise and under-deliver. Maybe that's why 95 percent of all start-up carriers fail. By far, economic carriers provide nothing more than the simplest service -treating people like a commodity.
In fact, some of the services can be down right demeaning. One major European economy carrier recently announced that future aircraft will not have window shades or seat pockets. Instead, your seat back will be plastered with advertising. What's next, coin-operated toilets?
Despite pedestrian service, economy airlines enjoy a mass influx of converts. Is this tectonic exodus well-deserved - or just a matter of spin?
The truth is, it's spin.
The greatest spin happens when economy carriers are called low-fare airlines.
Referring to them as "low-cost" is duplicitous. Consider a recent sampling of fares for a round trip flight from Washington, D.C. (Dulles) to Oakland,
Calif., departing June 8th, returning June 10th. "Low-fare" JetBlue offered a $275 fare, while "high-cost" Delta Air Lines yielded a $219.40 price, which included a chance for an upgrade.
Here's another example. This past week while planning a trip from Los Angeles to Philadelphia, I compared fares on Delta Air Lines and Southwest. Delta offered an upgradeable fare for $304, while Southwest's fare was $408.
And they call Southwest a low-fare airline? Please.
Southwest Airlines and its protégés have chiefly succeeded by cherry-picking routes and city pairs, flying between airports with the lowest landing fees - shifting schedules to match passenger demand, operating one type of aircraft that are cheaper to maintain, and easier to fill. They also have lower distribution cost (selling tickets direct and on the Internet), and a cheap labor force.
All of these variables with the exception of labor cost are easily duplicated.
However, they do not always serve the best interest of travel consumers.
By only serving a limited number of markets, economy carriers are selfishly saying that their customer's needs are not important. They serve limited markets to save money.
But the reality is that travelers' needs extend beyond one or two destinations.
Fact is, air travelers need access to the world.
Moreover, economy carriers typically operate from secondary airports sometimes up to 30 miles away from the city centers. In contrast, full service carriers offer steady global coverage from major airports with seamless connections, and the ease of transferring to partner airlines within their alliances (Star Alliance, One World, SkyTeam).
Oh, and one other thing. One size of aircraft does not fit all. Airlines that
only fly one type of aircraft have a fixed capacity. This makes it difficult
for flight schedulers to deal with cancelled or delayed flights. Since all
flights carry the same number of people which are usually full, passengers
whose flights are canceled due to mechanical reasons, or weather, can't be put on another aircraft - because there is no room.
Having a diverse fleet, allows full-service carriers to increase capacity with
a larger plane when a flight is canceled, providing customers with greater
convenience and comfort.
Air travel is a complex process at best. By focusing their service through the Internet, limiting the number of customer-contact employees available to serve customers, the so-called "low-fare" carriers are seeking self-interest at their customer's expense.
The Internet alone cannot resolve all ticketing issues. With limited customer contact support, passengers of economy carriers often are forced to navigate the Byzantine world of ticketing rules on their own. Full-service air carriers tend to have a higher ratio of full-service employees which might go unnoticed until there is a weather delay or flight cancellation, than these extra people can really help.
Why should travelers choose full-service carriers? There are a myriad of
reasons, including cost, comfort, choice, and convenience. It's the ability to fly anywhere in the world with seamless connections, the choice between luxurious first class, an comfortable business class or an enjoyable economy class, while being politely served.
Competitive fares that are sometimes lower than economy carriers, loyalty programs that are not in danger of going away (despite bankruptcy. United's MileagePlus program remains solid). There are in-flight meals, a choice of drinks, a range of entertainment options including movies, television programs, games and music.
In essence, it's a lifestyle choice.
The big three airlines have been serving customers for 75 years. A formidable feat, considering they have weathered an economic depression, numerous recessions, six wars, political turmoil, and changing consumer preference. Certainly, newbie economic carriers have room to prove themselves.
Until then, I think I'll stick with my first-class flights, boarding priority,
flying up front at a coach price and the preferred security lines.
Joel Widzer is author of "The Penny Pincher's Passport to Luxury Travel," a
guidebook on traveling in high style at budget-friendly prices.
“Yes, there is an electronic signature, and I'm sure Mr. Hill signed a confidentiality agreement. It's like certain training bonds, or a non-competition agreement. In a lot of cases they aren't worth the paper their written on once they get to court.”
If by electronic signature you are referring to "Conditions of Use" then it was not in place when WJ hacked the site. It is in place now.
“As far as Mr. Hill cutting a deal, it won't be necessary, as WJ has already admitted they accessed the info.”
Mr Hill's problems go deeper then WJ admitting guilt it all depends on what he did with the information and what he has told or is going to tell the court. Of course his memory will be refreshed by what the forensic accountant discovers. Think Martha Stewart and the mess she's in by telling a little white lie.
“Any court will determine that 10 months of WJ hacking has nothing to do with AC's financial and numerous other troubles.”
I don't think so as your argument is largely irrelevant. The court is only interested in all financial damages that occurred after the event. I will be surprised if the court widens the scope of interest beyond this event.
As far as AC is concerned I add the following article for your consideration.
Low cost airlines!
Open any major newspaper, listen to any financial report, or read any number of Web sites offering travel advice and you'll be sure to hear about the demise of the major network air-carriers. For years, travel pundits have proclaimed that the economy airlines (Southwest, JetBlue, AirTran Airways, Frontier Airlines, and Independence Air) are the Darwinian equivalent of natural selection.
Well, it is time to call a spade a spade.
Even though the low frills mode of transportation has been glamorized in the media as the future of travel - not unlike the way they described dot-coms as the future economy a few years ago - these companies can't deliver the value proposition.
And value is what travelers are really looking for.
You know, the four Cs: cost, convenience, choice, and comfort. Strict adherence to low-cost is not as relevant as affordability and lifestyle choice.
The basic assumption of the economic carriers' business model is that people will accept any level of service as long as it is cheap. That's where the misunderstanding begins.
Economy carriers do not offer the best way to travel, nor do they offer the
cheapest. Typically, economy carriers over-promise and under-deliver. Maybe that's why 95 percent of all start-up carriers fail. By far, economic carriers provide nothing more than the simplest service -treating people like a commodity.
In fact, some of the services can be down right demeaning. One major European economy carrier recently announced that future aircraft will not have window shades or seat pockets. Instead, your seat back will be plastered with advertising. What's next, coin-operated toilets?
Despite pedestrian service, economy airlines enjoy a mass influx of converts. Is this tectonic exodus well-deserved - or just a matter of spin?
The truth is, it's spin.
The greatest spin happens when economy carriers are called low-fare airlines.
Referring to them as "low-cost" is duplicitous. Consider a recent sampling of fares for a round trip flight from Washington, D.C. (Dulles) to Oakland,
Calif., departing June 8th, returning June 10th. "Low-fare" JetBlue offered a $275 fare, while "high-cost" Delta Air Lines yielded a $219.40 price, which included a chance for an upgrade.
Here's another example. This past week while planning a trip from Los Angeles to Philadelphia, I compared fares on Delta Air Lines and Southwest. Delta offered an upgradeable fare for $304, while Southwest's fare was $408.
And they call Southwest a low-fare airline? Please.
Southwest Airlines and its protégés have chiefly succeeded by cherry-picking routes and city pairs, flying between airports with the lowest landing fees - shifting schedules to match passenger demand, operating one type of aircraft that are cheaper to maintain, and easier to fill. They also have lower distribution cost (selling tickets direct and on the Internet), and a cheap labor force.
All of these variables with the exception of labor cost are easily duplicated.
However, they do not always serve the best interest of travel consumers.
By only serving a limited number of markets, economy carriers are selfishly saying that their customer's needs are not important. They serve limited markets to save money.
But the reality is that travelers' needs extend beyond one or two destinations.
Fact is, air travelers need access to the world.
Moreover, economy carriers typically operate from secondary airports sometimes up to 30 miles away from the city centers. In contrast, full service carriers offer steady global coverage from major airports with seamless connections, and the ease of transferring to partner airlines within their alliances (Star Alliance, One World, SkyTeam).
Oh, and one other thing. One size of aircraft does not fit all. Airlines that
only fly one type of aircraft have a fixed capacity. This makes it difficult
for flight schedulers to deal with cancelled or delayed flights. Since all
flights carry the same number of people which are usually full, passengers
whose flights are canceled due to mechanical reasons, or weather, can't be put on another aircraft - because there is no room.
Having a diverse fleet, allows full-service carriers to increase capacity with
a larger plane when a flight is canceled, providing customers with greater
convenience and comfort.
Air travel is a complex process at best. By focusing their service through the Internet, limiting the number of customer-contact employees available to serve customers, the so-called "low-fare" carriers are seeking self-interest at their customer's expense.
The Internet alone cannot resolve all ticketing issues. With limited customer contact support, passengers of economy carriers often are forced to navigate the Byzantine world of ticketing rules on their own. Full-service air carriers tend to have a higher ratio of full-service employees which might go unnoticed until there is a weather delay or flight cancellation, than these extra people can really help.
Why should travelers choose full-service carriers? There are a myriad of
reasons, including cost, comfort, choice, and convenience. It's the ability to fly anywhere in the world with seamless connections, the choice between luxurious first class, an comfortable business class or an enjoyable economy class, while being politely served.
Competitive fares that are sometimes lower than economy carriers, loyalty programs that are not in danger of going away (despite bankruptcy. United's MileagePlus program remains solid). There are in-flight meals, a choice of drinks, a range of entertainment options including movies, television programs, games and music.
In essence, it's a lifestyle choice.
The big three airlines have been serving customers for 75 years. A formidable feat, considering they have weathered an economic depression, numerous recessions, six wars, political turmoil, and changing consumer preference. Certainly, newbie economic carriers have room to prove themselves.
Until then, I think I'll stick with my first-class flights, boarding priority,
flying up front at a coach price and the preferred security lines.
Joel Widzer is author of "The Penny Pincher's Passport to Luxury Travel," a
guidebook on traveling in high style at budget-friendly prices.
Rebel I agree with you.
It is OK to criticize AC all the time. Any negative views or comments is accepted as gospel truth and seen as well deserve. Granted AC hasn’t the most stellar record, but they’re learning. Better late then never!
It is not OK to criticize WJ. Any negative views or reports is seen as untrue and fiction, not fact. I think WJ as taken the status of religious sect for some. The level of fanatism against anyone who brings a level of reality into this “bubble” is amazing! When reality hits, it will be painful for some ....
WJ has lost it's ways. Power corrupts...
About WJ as a low fare carrier. This is the biggest bull-sh*t I have ever heard. Leather seat, TV's and “buy your own mystery meal” on board? Low cost carrier? My ass. A low cost carrier doesn’t spend tons of money to get leather seats and TV’s. Why? Because this expense is pass down to the customer with higher fare. I couldn’t care less about leather seats and TV or Movies; if I’m hungry I’ll pack a lunch thank you very much. Low fare? Have you check Jetsgo and Canjet website lately? How about Air Canada? How' bout that?
Clive has said during WJ regular Cheerleading meetings that Air Canada will be finished by Dec 2003 and Jetsgo will go bankrupt because it was headed by mike Leblanc and they were using the wrong type of aircraft(?). Not very inspiring now, is he? Not only that, but how ironic that with all the WJ brainwashing and rhetoric they will, in the end, bail AC at their own expense! Are you still cheering??
The Westjet leadership will get their ass wiped and the Westjet people and investors (stock holders) will pay for it. Will the flying public pay for it too in higher fares? Time will tell. In any case Jetsgo and Canjet will benefit from it, again!
Don’t get me wrong, truly no-frills low-cost carrier have their place in this industry and bring about competition which is good for the consumer. Good examples are Jetgo and Canjet.
Shclem, WJ troll, good buddy, flame away…
It is OK to criticize AC all the time. Any negative views or comments is accepted as gospel truth and seen as well deserve. Granted AC hasn’t the most stellar record, but they’re learning. Better late then never!
It is not OK to criticize WJ. Any negative views or reports is seen as untrue and fiction, not fact. I think WJ as taken the status of religious sect for some. The level of fanatism against anyone who brings a level of reality into this “bubble” is amazing! When reality hits, it will be painful for some ....
WJ has lost it's ways. Power corrupts...
About WJ as a low fare carrier. This is the biggest bull-sh*t I have ever heard. Leather seat, TV's and “buy your own mystery meal” on board? Low cost carrier? My ass. A low cost carrier doesn’t spend tons of money to get leather seats and TV’s. Why? Because this expense is pass down to the customer with higher fare. I couldn’t care less about leather seats and TV or Movies; if I’m hungry I’ll pack a lunch thank you very much. Low fare? Have you check Jetsgo and Canjet website lately? How about Air Canada? How' bout that?
Clive has said during WJ regular Cheerleading meetings that Air Canada will be finished by Dec 2003 and Jetsgo will go bankrupt because it was headed by mike Leblanc and they were using the wrong type of aircraft(?). Not very inspiring now, is he? Not only that, but how ironic that with all the WJ brainwashing and rhetoric they will, in the end, bail AC at their own expense! Are you still cheering??
The Westjet leadership will get their ass wiped and the Westjet people and investors (stock holders) will pay for it. Will the flying public pay for it too in higher fares? Time will tell. In any case Jetsgo and Canjet will benefit from it, again!
Don’t get me wrong, truly no-frills low-cost carrier have their place in this industry and bring about competition which is good for the consumer. Good examples are Jetgo and Canjet.
Shclem, WJ troll, good buddy, flame away…
Blastor
It is ok to critcize. Rebel does a great job of this. The blood that flows through his vains must of the reddest you'll ever see. His posts bring the AC view point to the table in a factual and intelligent manner.
You, however, bring nothing to the table. You're endless anti-westjet posts are the equivilant of verbal diarrhea.
It is ok to critcize. Rebel does a great job of this. The blood that flows through his vains must of the reddest you'll ever see. His posts bring the AC view point to the table in a factual and intelligent manner.
You, however, bring nothing to the table. You're endless anti-westjet posts are the equivilant of verbal diarrhea.
VERY well put.Thompsonav8rboy wrote:Blastor
It is ok to critcize. Rebel does a great job of this. The blood that flows through his vains must of the reddest you'll ever see. His posts bring the AC view point to the table in a factual and intelligent manner.
You, however, bring nothing to the table. You're endless anti-westjet posts are the equivilant of verbal diarrhea.
Blastur labels me a troll but 5 of the last 9 topics started in this WJ forum are his attempt to let everyone know how evil WJ is and then he/she can't discuss it with someone with a neutral or different POV on this.
You don't need flames Blastur... you need to just relax and stop worrying about WJ so much.
Pie Lot,
You are dead wrong about WJ management not committing a criminal act in stealing AC's data. An individual former AC/CAL employee had legal possession and use of a password for the AC computer system; not WJ or an agent for WJ.
I agree, at this time, it is unlikely any criminal charges, or even an investigation, will be initiated in this matter. However, that is only because it involves a relatively minor level of harm to a corporation, as opposed to an individual person. The matter can be satisfactorily resolved through litigation with the aggrieved AC receiving appropriate compensation, and WJ financial penalty. I also agree that any award will not come close to be enough to "bail out" AC or to cause long term finanical harm to WJ. However, if WJ looses, the legal bills and award may well wipe out several quarter's profits and make WJ shares a whole lot less attractive for sometime to come.
As well, depending on what evidence comes out at trial, the crown will still have the option of persuing the matter in the criminal justice system. For example, under what circumstances did Mr. Hill give up his password to WJ management? Was he coerced, threatened, etc? Any element of that nature may well trigger a criminal investigation.
Spin it as you like, WJ mangement F'd up big time and has plunged their company into a long and expensive legal process over which they have little control. This matter could easily be dragging through the courts for the next 5 years, not including appeals, hanging over WJ like a big cloud of finanical uncertainty. That is just the kind of thing investors really like; after they've appropriately discounted the share price!
You are dead wrong about WJ management not committing a criminal act in stealing AC's data. An individual former AC/CAL employee had legal possession and use of a password for the AC computer system; not WJ or an agent for WJ.
I agree, at this time, it is unlikely any criminal charges, or even an investigation, will be initiated in this matter. However, that is only because it involves a relatively minor level of harm to a corporation, as opposed to an individual person. The matter can be satisfactorily resolved through litigation with the aggrieved AC receiving appropriate compensation, and WJ financial penalty. I also agree that any award will not come close to be enough to "bail out" AC or to cause long term finanical harm to WJ. However, if WJ looses, the legal bills and award may well wipe out several quarter's profits and make WJ shares a whole lot less attractive for sometime to come.
As well, depending on what evidence comes out at trial, the crown will still have the option of persuing the matter in the criminal justice system. For example, under what circumstances did Mr. Hill give up his password to WJ management? Was he coerced, threatened, etc? Any element of that nature may well trigger a criminal investigation.
Spin it as you like, WJ mangement F'd up big time and has plunged their company into a long and expensive legal process over which they have little control. This matter could easily be dragging through the courts for the next 5 years, not including appeals, hanging over WJ like a big cloud of finanical uncertainty. That is just the kind of thing investors really like; after they've appropriately discounted the share price!
Just out of curiousity, has anybody read the affidivits from this case?
Jeff Lafonds password and privilages expired December 31, 2003, yet Mark Hill was able to access the data as late as March 31, if my memory serves me correct. Emails and conversations also prove that Air Canada knew that the website was being accessed numerous times but did nothing to stop it, several times in fact. This case is more complex than most seem to acknowledge.
I don't like jumping in on these debates, especially since we have no control over them but there's a lot of uninformed crap being said in here. The newspapers aren't reliable sources of REAL information. Newspapers report quotes which illicit a debate, such as these. Most of them are taken out of context anyway.
Jeff Lafonds password and privilages expired December 31, 2003, yet Mark Hill was able to access the data as late as March 31, if my memory serves me correct. Emails and conversations also prove that Air Canada knew that the website was being accessed numerous times but did nothing to stop it, several times in fact. This case is more complex than most seem to acknowledge.
I don't like jumping in on these debates, especially since we have no control over them but there's a lot of uninformed crap being said in here. The newspapers aren't reliable sources of REAL information. Newspapers report quotes which illicit a debate, such as these. Most of them are taken out of context anyway.
-
Snow Monkey
- Rank 3
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:24 pm
- Location: south of 60
Everyone is currently saying that accessing the AC website is illegal. Was this web site in fact marked private or confidential? I am just asking because some of the web sites I am privy to at work make mention that the information contained is for company use only. Some aquaintances that have resigned from JAZZ have claimed that they can still access the site even though they have severed all ties and joined other companies. They also claim that they were never told or signed anything stating the confidentiality of the AC bookings web site. However in the light of the allegations against WJA the web site does now claim that it is confidential and sensitive information. Can anyone shed any light on this.
Perhaps that WJ gained info in an underhanded way and thats not too cool but was it in fact illegal. Lets hope that what ever the outcome is the matter gets resolved quickly and the employees of both companies don't get stung too badly.
Perhaps that WJ gained info in an underhanded way and thats not too cool but was it in fact illegal. Lets hope that what ever the outcome is the matter gets resolved quickly and the employees of both companies don't get stung too badly.
In reading the affadavits, this is what I gather:
At all material times, nothing on the website stating it was confidential. Since the action was commenced, the website has been changed to advise the persons accessing it that it is confidential information. Air Canada does not advise persons given access to the website that the information is private (that is probably changed now as well). Air Canada also doesn't provide any terms or conditions on the website stating it is confidential or limits the information to a particular purpose.
In March 2003, Air Canada gave Lafond a PIN to access the website until December 31, 2003. Air Canada imposed no conditions of confidentiality or any other conditions of Lafonds use of his PIN or the website.
Westjet was unaware before this action was commenced that Lafond had signed a release or any agreement with CAI containing a provision not to disclose confidential information on CAI. Air Canada gave Lafond access to the website more than 2 years after Lafond signed the release, in circumstances that have nothing to do with any confidentiality obligations Lafond could owe to CAI.
Lafond first accessed the website in March 2003 and shortly thereafter provided his PIN to mark Hill.
In early summer of 2003, Steve Smith became aware that Mark Hill was accessing information from Air Canada's employee website. Smith reported his belief to others at Air Canada and Zip. Air Canada could have investigated whether or not it was true, but did not. Air Canada allowed it continue, knowing the information was not confidential and had no value to the competitor.
In December, Steve Smith was advised that Mark Hill was accessing the website. Shortly thereafter, Air Canada figured out that he was using Lafonds PIN number. Air Canada could have terminated Hills access to the website, but again, did not.
When Lafonds privilages expired on December 31, Air Canada did not terminate his access to the website. Hill stopped using the website in March 2004.
The lawsuit is very interesting because not only was the information provided not confidential, during Air Canada's investigation they seized information from Mark Hill. Was it legal? The courts shall decide, but in any event, this case is in full swing and we won't hear anything for a few weeks.
At all material times, nothing on the website stating it was confidential. Since the action was commenced, the website has been changed to advise the persons accessing it that it is confidential information. Air Canada does not advise persons given access to the website that the information is private (that is probably changed now as well). Air Canada also doesn't provide any terms or conditions on the website stating it is confidential or limits the information to a particular purpose.
In March 2003, Air Canada gave Lafond a PIN to access the website until December 31, 2003. Air Canada imposed no conditions of confidentiality or any other conditions of Lafonds use of his PIN or the website.
Westjet was unaware before this action was commenced that Lafond had signed a release or any agreement with CAI containing a provision not to disclose confidential information on CAI. Air Canada gave Lafond access to the website more than 2 years after Lafond signed the release, in circumstances that have nothing to do with any confidentiality obligations Lafond could owe to CAI.
Lafond first accessed the website in March 2003 and shortly thereafter provided his PIN to mark Hill.
In early summer of 2003, Steve Smith became aware that Mark Hill was accessing information from Air Canada's employee website. Smith reported his belief to others at Air Canada and Zip. Air Canada could have investigated whether or not it was true, but did not. Air Canada allowed it continue, knowing the information was not confidential and had no value to the competitor.
In December, Steve Smith was advised that Mark Hill was accessing the website. Shortly thereafter, Air Canada figured out that he was using Lafonds PIN number. Air Canada could have terminated Hills access to the website, but again, did not.
When Lafonds privilages expired on December 31, Air Canada did not terminate his access to the website. Hill stopped using the website in March 2004.
The lawsuit is very interesting because not only was the information provided not confidential, during Air Canada's investigation they seized information from Mark Hill. Was it legal? The courts shall decide, but in any event, this case is in full swing and we won't hear anything for a few weeks.
-
Snow Monkey
- Rank 3
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:24 pm
- Location: south of 60
Actually my "spin" is a court affadafit.
When presented with a solid arguement all you can say is "interesting spin"? Sounds to me like you have no response. While I do agree the courts will decide who is right and who is wrong, my last post was not that of my opinion. Feel free to provide me with your point-of-view; "spin" if you will.
When presented with a solid arguement all you can say is "interesting spin"? Sounds to me like you have no response. While I do agree the courts will decide who is right and who is wrong, my last post was not that of my opinion. Feel free to provide me with your point-of-view; "spin" if you will.
CanadaEH
Lets wait and see what the court appointed forensic accountant tells the court which carries more weight then any court affidavit. Stories can be changed facts can't. When the court has assembled and heard all the evidence they will render a decision. Until that happens your dealing with speculation and putting your spin on it.
Lets wait and see what the court appointed forensic accountant tells the court which carries more weight then any court affidavit. Stories can be changed facts can't. When the court has assembled and heard all the evidence they will render a decision. Until that happens your dealing with speculation and putting your spin on it.
