Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Microsoft Employee Arrested For Leaking Windows 8
SmartAboutThings (1951032) writes "Alex Kibkalo, a former Microsoft employee has been arrested yesterday for stealing and leaking company secrets. The former software architecture engineer is accused of leaking early Windows 8 builds to a French tech blogger with whom he was communicating inside a forum. The ex-Microsoft employee also stands accused of leaking some Windows 7 program files and also an internal system meant to protect against software piracy. Kibkalo is said to have leaked the Windows 8 code in the middle of 2012 because he was angry over a poor performance review."
That makes sense. I mean, if you were driving down the road leaking botulism toxin or liposuction reclamation material, you'd get arrested...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A developer stole the code he was working on? How does that work?
Because his work is not really his. It belongs to the corporation. Everything belongs to the corporation. Space, time, all matter and all energy belong to the corporation according to the corporation. They got the lawyers to make it happen. He doesn't.
Work for hire. It isn't his to begin with. Plus he probably had code he did not write there too.
Summary says he released early builds, then it says he leaked "Windows 8 code". Code and builds aren't the same thing. So which was it?
Better known as 318230.
It's not pedantic there's a huge difference... take your ignorance and leave.
Another Microsoft injustice.
They told him he performed like Windows 8?
Many prefer to keep these leaks in house, lest current disgruntled employees get the -itis.
Microsoft publicized this to demonstrate to the world that there is someone that actually wanted Windows 8.
Yeah, blah, blah, corporations are evil and holding down the poor hard working honest guy. Nonsense. If I start a small corner store business making widgets, then hire you to help. I instruct you have to make my widgets, give you the tools and material to do it, pay you as we agreed, then you steal my inventory and give/sell it to someone then you are a THIEF. Just because it is software doesn't make it belong to you, and just because it is a corporation doesn't give you moral superiority.
could possibly be as bad as what Microsoft's own management is doing to Microsoft every day.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
This is ridiculous. He did not deprive the owner of their property, the elements of theft have not been met. This should have been handled as a conversion claim in civil court. What I think is criminal is the corporation using their power to influence the criminal justice system.
On Slashdot, we often talk about how ridiculous it is that software is covered by copyright AND patents, but no one addresses the fact that source code is also covered under trade secret law. This is a conflict of interest and shows how screwed up our intellectual property system is. The intent of copyright is that you get protection in return for making your works public. But in the case of source code, companies get all of the protections of copyright law on that code without being required to ever actually release the code to the public. That is made evident by this exact case.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that every software development company should be forced to release its code, but I do think they should have to choose between receiving copyright protection by releasing the code or receive no copyright protection and keep the code guarded by trade secret. I can't think of any other industry that gets protection from both copyright and trade secret and I haven't heard anyone suggest why software should be made an exception.
The developer stole nothing, one element necessary for theft is intentionally depriving the owner of their property and the owner was never deprived of their property. This is conversion
Now, they can't give away full copies of Win 8. The #1 faq on HP support for my bosses new laptop I was working on 2 weeks was, can I downgrade my operating system on my laptop and install my own copy ?
Alex Kibkalo, a former Microsoft employee has been arrested yesterday for stealing and leaking company secrets..... Kibkalo is a Russian national and has worked for Microsoft for seven years; he has joined 5nine Software in August 2013 as Director of Product Management for Security and Management products after quiting his job at Microsoft.
I wonder how he worked for MS for 7 years as H1-B Visas are supposed to be limited to 6 years.
The developer stole nothing, one element necessary for theft is intentionally depriving the owner of their property and the owner was never deprived of their property. This is conversion
In an interesting sense, you are technically correct because the owner is not being deprived of anything. The owner, Microsoft, still has the code and is thus deprived of nothing. This fits better under industrial espionage law. Unfortunately, case law precedent makes it possible to prosecute the actor under theft statutes.
They told him he performed like Windows 8?
The words they used were worse than Windows 8. That's what really stung! :D
The developer stole nothing, one element necessary for theft is intentionally depriving the owner of their property and the owner was never deprived of their property. This is conversion
In an interesting sense, you are technically correct because the owner is not being deprived of anything. The owner, Microsoft, still has the code and is thus deprived of nothing. This fits better under industrial espionage law. Unfortunately, case law precedent makes it possible to prosecute the actor under theft statutes.
Theft of secrets. Yes, the original blueprints, code, whatever, remains with the original owner. What has been stolen, however, was the exclusivity of the trade secrets. And trade secrets are only protected as long as they are secret.
This being Windows, 8, probably the most applicable route to prosecution is Illegal Disposal of Toxic Waste, but nevertheless...
Everything you say is true when we're talking about general production of physical widgets -- the raw material and production equipment belong to you and your employee performs simple repetitive, non-creative actions to build the widget for you. But does that analogy also apply to intellectual property, like software? In this case, the employer pays for a chair, a desk, electricity, cube/office, and a computer with software. None of these items are terribly expensive and are one-time investments. A developer can easily purchase them himself.
The employer then essentially provides a spec (which is often just a extremely vague set of requirements) and a monthly salary. We can therefore say that most of the software is created by the creative talent and skill (the raw material and machines in your analogy) of the developers. Does the work created by the software dev still completely belong to the employer for a few thousand dollars because of a few words written in the employment contract? I think not! Most of software is written by developers with little contribution from the employer and therefore should be licensed to the employer the same way a song is licensed by the musicians to record labels, how writers license their books to publishers etc.
Was he trying to warn the world how bad Windows 8 was?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The employer then essentially provides a spec (which is often just a extremely vague set of requirements) and a monthly salary. We can therefore say that most of the software is created by the creative talent and skill (the raw material and machines in your analogy) of the developers. Does the work created by the software dev still completely belong to the employer for a few thousand dollars because of a few words written in the employment contract? I think not! Most of software is written by developers with little contribution from the employer and therefore should be licensed to the employer the same way a song is licensed by the musicians to record labels, how writers license their books to publishers etc.
That sounds great, except that's not the contract that was agreed upon. If the agreement states that the developer is licensing the code to the employer, then great. But if a developer chooses to enter into what is currently the standard contract, then no, it doesn't work that way. If the developer enters into this type of agreement, then they can't simply decide it's going to work the other way. They can renegotiate with the employer for a different contract or leave the company.
And there is a considerable investment by the company. Not only do they need to pay for the items that you describe, but software, network expenses, and keeping those computer up to date. Chairs and desks do wear out. And rent and electricity are not one time investments. However the real expenses are in the marketing, packaging, support of the product, etc. If it was as simple as one guy sitting at a computer and coding all day, then every developer would have their own business. But it's not that simple. How many software companies go under and lose all of the invested money? Someone has to finance it all, so they are taking a big risk. If you think otherwise, you are even more naive than I would have guessed.
In that case you just stole my comment right there. If I had lawyers I could make you go to prison. Right? Of course I know the code wasn't his. But is this theft?
Tell that to all those who lost their bitcoins at Mt. Gox. It wasn't real currency, it was simply 1's and 0's right?
The employer is paying the software developer for the work he's doing while he is there. If you want to have your work licensed, free lance, and then license your code. Do it without the tools and time and resources provided by an employer during working hours. There are lots of projects and people who do this. Specify it in the contracts you create.
I've been in all the different stages. Started out as a developer for companies, went to independent contractor, started my own business and hiring programmers who work under me. I am paying them for their time and their skills and their creative talent, and the result of their work. Why is a programmer more entitled to something than a welder? Because one is using creativity in their brain? Then how about an engineer designing bridges or planes or cars? Should they have everything they do be licensed also?
A company that wants to keep the best and most creative people offer good benefits, the right tools and appropriate salaries. Some may get stock or profit sharing. These are the rewards, payment, for the services rendered. Now, the one point I will make is that things you do on your own time (at home, after hours, on vacation) should most certainly belong to you. I remember a case where some big company said something the engineer did on their own time belonged to them, and I find that rather repugnant.
... When you get a poor performance review, it doesn't help your case to engage in activity which justifies it.
Prosecute Microsoft. ;-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
...got a poor performance review.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
If you want to get technical, in the classic torts, you are correct that this is theft and not conversion. However, he's not being charged in a tort case. He's being charged for a violation of the Economic Espionage Act, and the relevant section is called "theft of trade secrets." (18 USC 1832)
So, you can either go informal, in which case "theft" is a reasonable, common word for taking someone else's stuff without their permission. Or you can go legalistic, in which case, the charge being applied to him is called "theft" as a matter of statutory law.
Either way, checkmate.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").