Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Apr 2012 19:05 UTC
Legal "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." This could be a huge deal, if it ever were to be upheld in higher courts. More specifically, "because Aleynikov did not 'assume physical control' over anything when he took the source code, and because he did not thereby 'deprive [Goldman] of its use', Aleynikov did not violate the [National Stolen Property Act]". Well paint me purple with white and red dots and call me a girl scout.
Thread beginning with comment 513937
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Makes sense
by Delgarde on Thu 12th Apr 2012 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Makes sense"
Member since:

It's a good call legally (maybe), but colloquially, "theft/steal" does applies to misappropriating code, IMO

Colloquially, yes. But colloquial usage is irrelevant - just because someone calls this kind of thing "theft", doesn't mean they can press charges under laws that define "theft" in terms of depriving the owner of physical property.

Had they instead charged him under copyright law, they'd almost certainly have won their case.

Reply Parent Score: 2