I'd say that the whole software patent thing is *wrong*. There are multiple ways to write software to do any given task, whether it is sorting data, or tracking customer information so that they can instantly order something (a la Amazon's 1-click ordering process).
Thus, I would argue that programming *is* art, and that the legal system is placing inherent limits on creativity (and, thus, technological advancement) through the patent process. In some fields, where the initial capital investment required to produce a technical advancement is rather high, the patent process helps (because of the increased potential of recouping losses on research), but for something that only requires one or two people (though, possibly, lots of time), I don't see any real benefit.
Also, from others' comments, the request for the warrant simply stated that the company had sent email. There are thus a few questions to answer your #1:
A) Was this to his company email, and if so, was this after he was disallowed access? (in this case, the company was faking it) B) Was this to his private email? If so, did they send it Return Receipt, and did they get a receipt? (Otherwise, it may never have been read.) C) Why didn't they send a letter with proof of delivery confirmation if they were so upset about it? This would have *definitely* counted as notification that they wanted return of the code.
I'm surprised no one has said anything...how does one *return* code? He'd have to delete it, and proof of deletion would be a mess. Right?
#2 is unlikely, unless he was incredibly stupid. I would think that he wouldn't have even contemplated posting it.
#3 can't be proved without server logs and/or the source code, and a qualified third party to examine it. Problem is, would HMS have a copy of "correct" code on hand? This is unlikely, for very many reasons, so if anyone looks at their code and he is/was right, then they're absolutely subject to a counter-suit
My understanding, from the PDF linked at the top, is that their action is not "personally [found] objectionable" by Chip, it's completely and utterly illegal (at least in terms of ignoring robots.txt and using open proxies, not to mention zombies). That said, I have not actually read the law myself, nor am I a lawyer. Retaining a lawyer would have been a *very* good idea, as this is related to illegal business practices. Also, he was doing this internally, and, while I agree that threatening legal action was stupid, I can see exactly why he did. (And this is why a lawyer would have helped.)
Furthermore, if the company is already breaking the law, and has sufficient legal firepower and the will to defy the court system (not unlikely in this case), then the *only* way to be able to take something like this to court is to keep backups and/or immediately go to law enforcement. Unless anyone has other ideas?
Of course, it seems that most lawyers aren't very good regarding technical issues, not to mention most judges, so going to law enforcement, if you don't go to the FBI directly, which probably would have been the best option, is of limited value.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that the whole software patent thing is *wrong*. There are multiple ways to write software to do any given task, whether it is sorting data, or tracking customer information so that they can instantly order something (a la Amazon's 1-click ordering process).
Thus, I would argue that programming *is* art, and that the legal system is placing inherent limits on creativity (and, thus, technological advancement) through the patent process. In some fields, where the initial capital investment required to produce a technical advancement is rather high, the patent process helps (because of the increased potential of recouping losses on research), but for something that only requires one or two people (though, possibly, lots of time), I don't see any real benefit.
Also, from others' comments, the request for the warrant simply stated that the company had sent email. There are thus a few questions to answer your #1:
A) Was this to his company email, and if so, was this after he was disallowed access? (in this case, the company was faking it)
B) Was this to his private email? If so, did they send it Return Receipt, and did they get a receipt? (Otherwise, it may never have been read.)
C) Why didn't they send a letter with proof of delivery confirmation if they were so upset about it? This would have *definitely* counted as notification that they wanted return of the code.
I'm surprised no one has said anything...how does one *return* code? He'd have to delete it, and proof of deletion would be a mess. Right?
#2 is unlikely, unless he was incredibly stupid. I would think that he wouldn't have even contemplated posting it.
#3 can't be proved without server logs and/or the source code, and a qualified third party to examine it. Problem is, would HMS have a copy of "correct" code on hand? This is unlikely, for very many reasons, so if anyone looks at their code and he is/was right, then they're absolutely subject to a counter-suit
Furthermore, if the company is already breaking the law, and has sufficient legal firepower and the will to defy the court system (not unlikely in this case), then the *only* way to be able to take something like this to court is to keep backups and/or immediately go to law enforcement. Unless anyone has other ideas?
Of course, it seems that most lawyers aren't very good regarding technical issues, not to mention most judges, so going to law enforcement, if you don't go to the FBI directly, which probably would have been the best option, is of limited value.