"Steal" some source code? No you didn't -- you can't steal what you can't hold.


Off-Topic Discussions


Well isn't that just intriguing?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Looks like all they did was confirm that it's intellectual, not physical property. Makes it a copyright case, not a theft case.


I kind of thought that would be the next approach honestly -- but we'll have to see what happens. Don't such would certainly increase the amount of patent trolling going on.


Interesting. Very interesting. Thanks for posting it, and for your opinions, gentles.

Sovereign Court

This isn't really a new development and is one reason why non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements are required. Most "theft of information" cases have relied on the fact that actual papers got stolen not the information itself.

If you read the decision (the action starts at page 12) you can see that this is an old problem (first case they site is in 1966). Basically they just reiterate that the crime of theft requires taking a tangible object and confidential information is an intangible.

But its still a neat case. There's a bunch of sleazy corruption stuff going on here too, the US prosecutors lied to a judge in Canada in order to have him extradited.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/03/cisco_charged_with_duplicity/

Grand Lodge

You can still do a lot of damage to someone in civic court. Including get them sent to jail. So while this case is interesting, it doesn't mean that people can start freely lifting all their company's source code without recourse.


I'm kind of wondering if somehow they couldn't press the copyright issue. While he apparently did download the code it isn't readily apparent that he did so illegally -- after all he was employed by them as a programer. Perhaps they went for theft because he hadn't done anything (yet) to warrant it being a copyright case?

Also while I have not seen the code in question it sounds like a market sniping bot program to me.

I've not fully researched the case however and could (of course) be wrong on it.

Here is what Wiki has on the programmer in question.

Sovereign Court

Gah. I got this case confused with the cisco one. Ignore my linked article.

Sovereign Court

Abraham spalding wrote:

I'm kind of wondering if somehow they couldn't press the copyright issue. While he apparently did download the code it isn't readily apparent that he did so illegally -- after all he was employed by them as a programer. Perhaps they went for theft because he hadn't done anything (yet) to warrant it being a copyright case?

Also while I have not seen the code in question it sounds like a market sniping bot program to me.

I've not fully researched the case however and could (of course) be wrong on it.

Here is what Wiki has on the programmer in question.

The problem with the civil route is that copyright protection is not typically available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts.

What they are worried about here is a secret algorithm. They don't want anyone knowing the math they use so that competing traders can't predict their moves. If all they cared about was exclusive use they would try to patent the formula - put to do that you have to make it public.

And if you sue the guy he gets to do discovery, show it to experts and the legal team and maybe put it in public filings and your secret trading algorithm is now super public. ( You'll note that in the criminal proceedings they cleared the courtroom a few times.)

They also have to prove damages, if no one else has seen the code, they aren't going to get much - and as far as remedies goes, 8 years in jail is better for Goldman's than whatever money they could have squeezed out of the programmer.


To be clear then: They can't push the copyright issue as a criminal case, only as a civil case?

Sovereign Court

Well the criminal route:

Spoiler:

Quote:


§ 506. Criminal offenses4

(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

You can see this is really written for catching bootleggers who are trading songs or movies (retail price is mentioned a lot) not a guy downloading code that may or may not be copyrightable. So out of three possible offences only the first really applies:

Willful infringement "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".

So for this the state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt 1) willfulness, 2) infringement, 3) for purpose of financial gain and 4) that the work was copyrightable.

IIRC willfulness is a pretty high bar, you have to show the intentional violation of a known legal duty - which means not just the intent to copy, but the intent to actually infringe.

And if the guy didn't actually manage to sell or transfer the code to anyone its a misdemeanor not a felony (if it is a felony its max 5 years instead of the 8 this guy got originally).

Much harder case to make than the civil side. And instead of your fancy pants million dollar boutique copyright litigation firm arguing whether or not your code is copyrightable you have underpaid government lawyers doing it.

Big litigation risk compared to trying a theft case. And your big goal of keeping the algorithm secret is kinda shot as well since whether or not it is copyrightable is going to be in dispute unlike in the theft case


My child's school (much to my anger) has been handing out propaganda from the recording industry saying "Downloading is THEFT". I guess they'll have to stop that now.


darth_borehd wrote:
My child's school (much to my anger) has been handing out propaganda from the recording industry saying "Downloading is THEFT". I guess they'll have to stop that now.

I'm fairly certain that's not the case since with much of downloading you aren't downloading code but intellectual property. This guy's case is odd because what he 'grabbed' was strictly code -- it's not necessarily a working product.

Also the music/movie/game is generally considered for retail sale and sale in multiple countries, which opens it up to other laws as well.

Of course I could have this wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I have nothing to say about this case, but my friend's family's coffee roastery has won 95% of its case against Starbucks--and the last 5% is still being decided upon!

Starbucks was hitting them for copyright infringement because they put out a parody brand called Charbucks. Hee hee!

Of course, I don't know how much they had to spend to stand up against the yuppie juggernaut, but they're pretty thrilled. Take that, corporate America!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, I have nothing to say about this case, but my friend's family's coffee roastery has won 95% of its case against Starbucks--and the last 5% is still being decided upon!

Starbucks was hitting them for copyright infringement because they put out a parody brand called Charbucks. Hee hee!

Of course, I don't know how much they had to spend to stand up against the yuppie juggernaut, but they're pretty thrilled. Take that, corporate America!

Glad to hear it. I love parodies.

Sovereign Court

The other interesting thing about the case is that this is exactly what a Mr. Johnson would hire a group of shadowrunners to do. Extract this scientist and his data from Sachs-Goldman's corporate arcology!

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / "Steal" some source code? No you didn't -- you can't steal what you can't hold. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.