Sklyarov Clarifies Circumstances of Release, Testimony

*ZiggyP0P* writes: "We remember hearing how Dmitry was let off and released (so he can finally go home) but how he had to cooperate with the government in the prosecution of his employer as a plea bargain. Turns out that this was all a lie by the Justice Dept. Skylarov has released his own statements which explain what exactly happened. He has entered into no legal plea bargain and he is still employed by Elcomsoft (even though the justice dept called him his former employer)."

Comments

Defamation Charges

[bstadil]

If the statement by Skylarov is indeed the "Fact" then he should have a very good case for Defamation charges against the US government. Hope they file this is a Russian court so any claims agains the company will have a local offset. The DOJ made a mistake but they can't admit to that. Anyone found it poetic Justice that Adobe was barred from selling InSIde due to Patent Infringements.

Adobe's Strategy Backfires?

[GGardner]

Before Dmitry was detained, who had heard of Elcomsoft? Apparently, they had sold very few copies of their software. Not that they'd asked for it, but now they've got more publicity than they could have paid for. I wonder if sales are picking up too? Could it be that Adobe's strategy has completely backfired?

Challenge to DMCA

[sabinm]

This actually means two things

1.Dimitry will not face any charges, nor will have a felony record.

2.Since this is not a case of testifying against Elmsoft, this means that a challenge to the DMCA is still possible, with a legitimate corporation with relatively large coffers defending itself.

So really, the tech-culture gets its day in court without any criminal reprecussions and we get a constitutional challenge to a very unconstitutional law.

Way to go, DOJ, I knew you were on our side!

Re:Challenge to DMCA

[Uncle Warthog]

Dimitry will not face any charges, nor will have a felony record.

Unfortunately, this isn't what this means. What the government has said they're doing is defering prosecution until a later date.

They've said they'll considering dropping charges after a year or after ElcomSoft is tried, whichever comes later, only if he has met his "obligations". If he hasn't, they'll just place him back on trial in a year or whenever the ElcomSoft trial is finished, whichever is later. The wording of the government agreement seems vague enough that they could simply change their minds at that point, making up some "obligation" he didn't meet.

The challenge to the DMCA is still possible but may not be able to go very far considering the fact that ElcomSoft is not a U.S. corporation. (At least I'm pretty sure they're not. Does anyone here know for sure?)

There is still plenty of chance of criminal repercussions from all this. There will still be a trial against ElcomSoft and there could still be one against Dmitry as well with possible convictions coming from both.

wordsmithing

[nhavar]

Notice that the original state statement mentions that he admitted to his "conduct" not "misconduct". Meaning that basically he admitted that he wrote a program that cracked the adobe file, not admitted that what he did was wrong. The second point is that he agreed to aid in the prosecution, well maybe he agreed to testify and the prosecution wants to use that testimony but that doesn't equate to him actually agreeing to "help/aid" the prosecution.

personally I think that the government is going to jerk around until enough people forget about this. I think in hind sight they do not want this very high profile case to go to court, likewise none of the media companies want it there either. They want this law to sit on the books for awhile and become "accepted" before anyone tries to test it. I'm sure another year from now we'll here some snippet blurb saying that the govt and elcomsoft entered into a "Plea" agreement where elcomsoft agree's not to sell the product in the US in exchange for the small slap on the wrist or "deferred" sentencing. What a joke!

Who's spinning who?

[davidebsmith]

Joe Burton says that the DOJ statement "is a cleverly crafted statement that promotes the notion that Dmitry admits wrongful conduct and has entered into a Plea Agreement with the U.S. Government."

But the DOJ statement never uses the term "Plea Agreement", nor does it claim that Dmitri admitted to "wrongful" conduct.

Dmitri claims that he is not cooperating with the government.

But in the Diversion Agreement he agrees to testify if requested by the government in the case of United States v. Elcom Ltd., agrees that any statements he makes may be used against him in a prosecution for obstruction of justice or perjury, and waives most of his constitutional rights in exchange for a promise that he will not be prosecuted if he lives up to his end of the Agreement. Not cooperation?

And ElcomSoft says that Dmitri's testimony can only be supportive to their case and they only want Dmitri to tell the truth.

But of course, ElcomSoft is still a defendant facing criminal prosecution in this case, and criminal defendants always claim that when the true facts come out, they will be shown to be innocent.

So once you cut through the spin that Dmitri, ElcomSoft and the EFF (none of whom are neutral, disinterested parties in this case) put on it, the only real undisputed inaccuracy in the DOJ statement is the bit about the "former" employer. Which is probably a misreading of Dmitri's statement in the Diversion Agreement that "continuing through July 15, 2001, [he] was employed by" ElcomSoft.

Remember that PR works for both sides, folks.