The article presents a fairly plausible theory, but no actual evidence to support incredibly serious accusations. It certainly sounds like the case was benefici

The article presents a fairly plausible theory, but no actual evidence to support incredibly serious accusations. It certainly sounds like the case was beneficial to Cisco, but the theory completely disregards the idea that the founder actually did commit these crimes. "[I]ntentionally accessing a protected computer system without authorization for the purposes of commercial advantage" certainly sounds like something the founder of a company wanting to sell software that Cisco has exclusive rights to might do. And what if they are both in the wrong? Perhaps Alfred-Adekeye did hack into their systems, but they only filed suit in retaliation? The author is simply assuming the corporation must be abusing power, and that the US Attorney's office is extremely susceptible to corporate influence. I would consider that to be a much bigger story than the reason why Cisco did this. If this article is true, I don't care about why they did it, I care about how they did it. The fact that this is completely ignored and no evidence provided makes me doubtful.