Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Code Not Physical Property

Posted by timothy on from the took-them-this-long-to-notice dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired: "Former Goldman Sachs programmer Sergey Aleynikov, who downloaded source code for the investment firm's high-speed trading system from the company's computers, was wrongly charged with theft of property because the code did not qualify as a physical object under a federal theft statute, according to a court opinion published Wednesday." Adds the submitter: "The RIAA's definitely got to give Goldman Sachs their secret recipe ..."

11 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. "Intellectual" Proerty by SirBitBucket · · Score: 5, Funny

    Code can only be created by intellectuals, like /. readers; therefore, it is Intellectual Property, not some ho-hum, run-of-the-mill property...

    1. Re:"Intellectual" Proerty by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well as inheritor of the intellectual property of Genghis Khan, I will be replying to this cease-and-desist with a horde of mounted archers.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:"Intellectual" Proerty by julesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'll find most patents expire at the point of a sword.

  2. Procedural error by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a procedural error, not a statement that 'stealing' code isn't a crime. Rest assured, legislation is being drafted that will ensure that stealing from a poor, innocent company, will earn you at least 30 years in jail and an 8 trillion dollar fine. Really, it would be less troublesome to just murder the CEO the way the laws are being written these days...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Procedural error by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Informative

      What I don't understand is why they want to believe that Stealing code is a piece of property....But Importing Code from another country is just information (not requiring import taxes etc....) How on earth can it be both?

      Easy. Like this: "Hey, legislator, I want a new law passed that makes absolutely no sense but will benefit me greatly. In exchange, I'll pay for your re-election campaign." "derp derp herp derp." "Okay then! Thank you for your cooperation."

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Procedural error by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Correct. Not that what Aleynikov did wasn't wrong. But for our legal system to operate properly and fairly, we've go to stick to the rules. Now, I'm no legal scholar, but the judge evidently had reservations about exactly what the intent of Congress was when they wrote that federal statute. And that's a good thing. It will force them (Congress) to go back to the drawing board and address the different aspects of stealing/copying/damaging this class of property. And they very well may make a distinction between snatching a copy for yourself and depriving the original owner of the use of their property. And they might address the various ways that this deprivation can affect the owner, from an outright denial of service to the (imaginary or real) loss of potential market share. And each case could get its own legal treatment, which might end up being a good thing all around.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  3. Criminal charges vs. civil suit by sohmc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's the difference between the RIAA and Goldman Sachs. The RIAA doesn't arrest anyone or even get the state to arrest anyone. They just file lawsuits. Goldman Sachs actually wanted criminal charges.

    I'm sure that Goldman Sachs will now file a copyright infringement lawsuit.

    But it begs the question if anyone has ever been jailed for copyright infringement. My google skills are lacking now that I'm in my post-lunch coma...

    --
    We don't live in Shouldland.
    1. Re:Criminal charges vs. civil suit by am+2k · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it begs the question if anyone has ever been jailed for copyright infringement.

      Yep: Kino.to Admin Gets 2,5 Years Prison Sentence.

    2. Re:Criminal charges vs. civil suit by jbengt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure that Goldman Sachs will now file a copyright infringement lawsuit.

      I'm not at all sure of that - a trade secret can't be copyrighted, can it?

  4. Re:"Intellectual" Property by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Code can only be created by intellectuals, like /. readers; therefore, it is Intellectual Property, not some ho-hum, run-of-the-mill property...

    Seems like your attempt at snark was almost as successful as your spelling in the title.

    But, perhaps by accident you've hit the nail on the head. This should have been charged with a copyright or trade secrets violation, or some security breach, not theft of property. Most states have laws covering criminal use of computers, as does the federal government. There was never a need to base these charges on the theft statutes.

    In California (by way of example) there are specific laws concerning taking information from a computer in an unauthorized way. (Penal Code Section 499c 2.)

    But the bigger question is how many others have been charged with simple Property Theft under federal law in the past for this same sort of breach (downloading source code) and paid the penalty or served the time?

    To what extent does this change the landscape for computer break-ins?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  5. Re:In other news: water is wet! by Fned · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All they have done is stated that code is non-corporeal. They haven't said stealing it isn't a crime...

    Who gives a shit if it's still a crime, do you realize what this means?!

    Now whenever someone says "copyright infringment is theft", instead of spending dozens of paragraphs pointing out the gigantic unpatchable holes in their spurious-ass inevitable failure of an argument, we can now just say, "Goldman-Sachs v. Aleynikov, your argument is invalid. STFU forever."

    This will save SO much time in the future.