Slashdot Mirror
Judge Dismisses Second Conviction of Ex-Goldman Sachs Coder
itwbennett writes: Back in May, former Goldman Sachs programmer Sergey Aleynikov was convicted by a jury for stealing 32MB of code for Goldman's high-frequency trading system, code that Aleynikov maintained he copied for intellectual pursuits and was, in fact, open-source. On Monday, Judge Daniel P. Conviser of New York's State Supreme Court dismissed the conviction, saying that Aleynikov acted wrongfully by taking the code, but his actions did not meet the standard under the law in which he was charged. "The evidence did not prove he intended to appropriate all or a major portion of the code's economic value," Conviser wrote.
I see they address the Double Jeopardy laws, saying "New York state prosecutors then took up his case, charging him in August 2013 under different laws but for the same actions, avoiding a conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against being tried twice for the same crime." Now as far as I know, there is a bit more to Double Jeopardy than just them being different laws; doesn't a new prosecution require different evidence as well to be a valid prosecution for the same action? Does anyoe know how different the charges are this time?
I was more meaning the circumstances - just because you find a GPLV2 'Copying' file in the file-tree does not mean that the whole thing can be distributed, as you have no way of knowing what the authors intent was.
If I put a COPYING file in my windows source tree, it doesn't make windows open-source unless I have the authority, legal clearance, and intent to release that code.
I'm surprised it got this far, considering the unlimited resources available to the other side. Eventually they'll bury him in so much paper that his legal fees will exceed the GDP of a small country and he'll have to give up.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
I was more meaning the circumstances - just because you find a GPLV2 'Copying' file in the file-tree does not mean that the whole thing can be distributed, as you have no way of knowing what the authors intent was.
If I put a COPYING file in my windows source tree, it doesn't make windows open-source unless I have the authority, legal clearance, and intent to release that code.
But there's another aspect of this. Say my company downloads the Linux kernel and we internally make some changes to it and use it on our servers in its modified form. Jim is one of the coders. Linux is released under GPLv2. Does that mean that Jim can take our changes home with him?
No.
The GPLv2 kicks in only when the company redistributes the code along with the modifications, and those modifications are available to the recipients that we've specified.
People often mistake "GPLv2" for "public domain" - the idea being that if my company is distributing GPLv2'd software then it's a free-for-all and anybody can have it. That's not the case.
So, even if Goldman Sachs was using GPLv2'd code unless they specifically gave it to him he can't legally have it. And my guess is that they're not about to give away the kind of code that was mentioned there.
Do you have ESP?
This article - http://www.vanityfair.com/news... - by Michael Lewis, makes the case look like extreme over-reach by our corporate overlords.
Not to mention that the code that Aleynikov allegedly stole is worthless without a substantial investment in supporting code and trading infrastructure to take advantage of it, not that the higher-ups at a place like Goldman necessarily understand this.
The double-jeopardy bypass is also astoundingly corrupt. Not so astounding is the arrogance by which Goldman takes advantage of open-source while ignoring the rules around it.
You need to read "Flash Boys" by Michael Lewis to get the full story. The programmer made routine backups of the modifications he made to open source files for release back into the community. Something that Goldman Sach wasn't doing because they were routinely stripping out the GPL license headers and claiming ALL CODE as proprietary. They called the FBI on this guy to prevent him from working for someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Boys
You'd probably still be guilty of a lesser charge. You just wouldn't be smacked with the most gigantic penalty or most draconian criminal charge that they might level at you.
Note that even a misdemeanor on your record, even if it is a relatively light one, is enough to disqualify you from a position like his if you do what he did. I've heard of people who have convictions where HR remarked that if they'd only had a DWI or an assault charge instead of a theft, they could have been hired (if it was clear that they were cleaned up), but due to contracts with clients and insurance policies, any person with a theft on their record can't be placed in a position where money might change hands or be controlled by their code. It will vary based on who it is, of course, but his work in the financial industry is over. And honestly, despite the company's attempt to throw the kitchen sink at him, he really only needed to be convicted of petty theft under the wrong circumstances to end that line of work for him.
Hacking? No problem, if he'd only broken into some government system. Just don't, under any circumstances, steal or even look at electronic representations of money, if you manage get into a system.
I've had similar happen to me. When I was let go they did not make me sign a non-compete, but when I was in talks with another company that was a possible competitor to them, they claimed (wrongly) that I had possession of their intellectual property and called in the lawyers demanding that I give it back. I didn't have any, so I was unable to do so. But then reading more carefully, what they were saying is that they gave me education on my particular area of expertise which I had been doing for 6 years before they hired me specifically for that knowledge and now they are claiming all of my knowledge in that area and claiming that I cannot work for a competitor because all of the knowledge I have belongs to them merely because they augmented it in some small way.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Prior to this Sergey Aleynikov was the only person connected with the global financial meltdown to receive any prison time at all in the US. Now that it has been dismissed we can say that nobody involved in destroying the savings and retirements of billions of people around the world was significantly punished. At least they gave their word that they wouldn't engage in the sort of risky behavior that collapsed the global economy again I guess, and we know that investment bankers are as good as their word.
I read the internet for the articles.