18 ms·

Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

240 points by gkuan 13y ago

rdtsc 13y ago
Sergey is a good Erlang programmer. He is active in on the Erlang mailing list. He wrote a cool C++ to Erlang interface. Here is his Github account: https://github.com/saleyn https://github.com/saleyn I am happy for him. He is a great asset to the open source community.
- davidw 13y ago
  Yeah, I didn't put two and two together until after reading the Vanity Fair article, but I'd been interacting with Sergey because we're using erlexec in a project: https://github.com/saleyn/erlexec/commits/master?page=2 https://github.com/saleyn/erlexec/commits/master?page=2 Nice, and helpful person.
Volpe 13y ago
Love the racial inclusion for no reason.
- Volpe 13y ago
  That was sarcasm (btw). And I was pointing out the article was pointing out the programmer was Russian for absolutely no reason. Why was it important for us to know his nationality?
  - Grue3 13y ago
    I am Russian and I agree with this. Not all of us are prone to leak trade secrets, honest!
lambda 13y ago
If anyone's interested, I found the appeals court ruling finding him not guilty of violating federal law, and leading to his release, on PACER, uploaded to the Internet Archive so you can access it without a paywall via RECAP: https://ia700209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.165.0.pdf https://ia700209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.35... The basic argument hinges on the three counts, related to three laws he was alleged to have broken: the Economic Espionage Act, the National Stolen Property Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse act. The third charge was dismissed by the district court because it rested on the fact that he had either accessed systems he was not authorized to or exceeded authorized access. However, he was authorized to access the source code in question, and what he did with it afterwards has no bearing on whether he exceeded his authorization, so it doesn't fall under the CFAA. The district court did convict him on the first two counts, but the Appeals Court reversed. Their argument is that the National Stolen Property Act doesn't apply because it applies only to actual physical goods, not mere intangible ideas. Had he photocopied the source and walked out with it, or loaded it onto a thumb drive at the office and taken that with him, it would have counted as stealing a physical good, but merely uploading it to a server and downloading it onto a thumb drive later does not count. The court further argues that he did not violate the Economic Espionage Act because the clause in question he was prosecuted under specifically requires that the "trade secret ... is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce". Since Goldman Sachs' HFT trading system entirely proprietary and internal and not produced for or placed in interstate commerce, that particular law does not apply. Apparently Congress specifically intended this restriction, because earlier drafts of the statute had broader language that merely included "proprietary economic information having a value of not less than $100,000". The fact that Goldman Sachs uses the product for interstate commerce is not compelling, it had to itself be produced for or placed in interstate commerce. That last part is interesting. It implies that if you run proprietary, internal code that is not sold or intended to be sold in the future, you appear to lose federal criminal trade secret protections. It's interesting that they tried to prosecute him on theft, trade secret infringement, and exceeding authorized access, but not copyright infringement. From my reading even unpublished work is subject to copyright. Neither the original conviction nor the appeals court opinion ever addressed the copyright issue. In order for him to have stolen something, it would have had to be something of value; so why wasn't he further prosecuted for copyright violation? From the documents I read (not all are available on PACER), the copyright question never even came up. More documents from the case: Motion to dismiss the original case in district court: https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.46.0.pdf https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.35... Government's response to the motion: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.50.0.pdf http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov... Affadavit of the investigating officer: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.50.1.pdf http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov... District court's opinion dismissing the third count but refusing to dismiss the first two: https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.58.0.pdf https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.35... List of files requested in discovery, to demonstrate that what he took was insubstantial and not proprietary: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.35.0.pdf http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov... A few of the things he had downloaded were their version of the Erlang platform, which is available under the Erlang Public License, a derivative of the Mozilla Public License. So it would be more fruitful to debate the merits of that license, not the GPL. All of the currently uploaded items in the docket: https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.docket.html https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.35...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- beagle3 13y ago
  IANAL, but if I understand correctly, to claim copyright infringement, they would have had to register the work with the library of congress, and essentially make it publicly viewable - which I assume they didn't want. Copyright in this kind of case is usable almost exclusively by GPL style licenses, where the code is already available.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Registration is not required. Registering allows you to sue for more money than if you don't register, but any creative work is automatically protected by copyright law (including full rights to control and prevent reproduction/distribution) automatically as of the moment the work is first fixed into a "tangible form of expression".
    - beagle3 13y ago
      Thanks. But wouldn't they still need to make a copy available e.g. In the court documents? That would definitely be an angle they would want to avoid
      - ubernostrum 13y ago
        No, they are not required to make a full copy available to the court in order to enforce copyright. The US Copyright Office has a FAQ document which explains what registration does: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html A more detailed explanation is in this pamphlet: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
    - Amadou 13y ago
      Registering allows you to sue for more money than if you don't register, Maximum is $250,000 per infringement if it is registered (and possible jail time for 10 or more infringements). If it is not registered then liabilty is just (simplified version) the retail price of each work infringed. So, without registering it and without ever pricing it for sale, it could be argued that the damages would be $0.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jaryd 13y ago
For those that are interested in the backstory: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer.print http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...
- anmol 13y ago
  Wow, great marketing for goldman sachs. Another reason for software engineers to stay away from these large ibanks.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  > during which time he sent himself, through a so-called “subversion repository,” i just can imagine how every FBI agent jumps when reading that there is a whole repository of subversion (or subversions?) out there.
- nandemo 13y ago
  Wow, he talked to a cop without a lawyer AND signed a confession...
- stana 13y ago
  Thanks for the link. Interesting read, especially the line: "The only employee of Goldman Sachs to go to jail in the aftermath of the financial crisis was the employee Goldman Sachs wanted sent to jail."
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Interesting story. He seems like a good guy, but quite naive ...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
downandout 13y ago
It's very clear that Goldman is trying to punish him for leaving, while sending a message to their other programmers that if they leave, their lives will be ruined. Even if this guy ultimately wins the state trial, he will never get back the years he has spent fighting it. Goldman has already won, and in this case that is appalling.
- vinkelhake 13y ago
  Things always appear clear to conspiracy theorists. Do you have facts to back this up? People join and leave jobs in the financial industry every day. Is Goldman Sachs special in this regard?
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Those people wearing the tinfoil hats were right.
  - downandout 13y ago
    Do you have any idea how rare it is for a judge to order the alleged victim of a crime to pay the defense costs of the alleged perpetrator? If I'm a conspiracy theorist, the judge that made this ruling is as well.
  - pvnick 13y ago
    Ok can we please stop with the "conspiracy theorist" label/ad hominem attacks? After the NSA revelations have shown things to be a lot worse than even the more paranoid conspiracy theorists thought, folks with an eye for corruption have earned a little wiggle room to be taken seriously.
    - vinkelhake 13y ago
      If you begin a statement with "It's very clear" then I expect you to back that statement up with facts so that the rest of us can see why it's so clear. Does it seem reasonable that Goldman Sachs want to send a message to their own programmers? Is that going to work well for them in recruiting? If anything, the NSA revelations have given conspiracy theorists carte blanche to go full steam on their theories. You'll hardly find a thread related to Google on HN without the obligatory "Well, now that we know that Google has given NSA has unfettered access to all data..."
merraksh 13y ago
which time he sent himself, through a so-called "subversion repository," 32 megabytes of source code from Goldman’s high-frequency stock-trading system. I can't help smile at the thought of what non-CS people might mistake a "subversion repository" for.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Just imagine the reactions you can get from talking about daemons reaping zombie children... Though given how mainstream gory video games have become, talking about Unix process management in public doesn't sound quite as shocking as it used to.
poof131 13y ago
Question: does anyone know if software patents were declared null and void, would this case still exist? It seems he only took snippets of code and not the entire system for profit. How would this case differ if software was copyrightable but not patentable (i.e. Either you stole the manuscript or you didn't)?
- Amadou 13y ago
  I doubt patents have anything to do with this. Patents restrict use, copyright restricts copies. AFAIK, he didn't actually run the 'stolen' software, only copied it.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Doesn't matter. Open source licences, patents, nothing matter. Code on the employer's computer is considered property, copying it is the same as stealing the actual workstation...
- wglb 13y ago
  Trade secrets are an entirely different category from patents. Patents require you to disclose all the details. Trade secrets, which is likely what such software is likely to be declared to be, is, well, secret. As such, it has legal protection different than patents or copyrights.
shmerl 13y ago
Here is the story covered in more detail: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Here is a page that was set up for him last year. Looks as though it hasn't been updated in a while. http://www.aleynikov.org/ http://www.aleynikov.org/
patmcguire 13y ago
The Michael Lewis article, which is more or less required reading on this: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...
OldSchool 13y ago
This type of story underscores my Icarus-inspired philosophy in business: fly high but not so high that you become an obvious target or otherwise risk getting burned. I learned relatively early that above some level (that's not even all that high), you'll find that you're dealing primarily with people whose sole purpose in life seems to be to serve their love of money and quest for validation. They are like insects drawn to a light and about as thoughtful. Suffice to say that when you find that you have to play harder and harder to make up for the stress of your daily work life, it's time to take a look at what you really want and why you're doing what you're doing.
- debt 13y ago
  Truth. I was talking stocks with my girlfriend. She thought it was too scary to get involved in something as potentially volatile as the stock market. I told her basically what you just described. There are many people in business that are literal sociopaths. They will bury and burn any and all barriers on their path to making an increase in share price. "I will not let this company flounder on my watch!", they hypothetically say in my mind. To these mythical business people, the share price is an extension of their character. Maybe that's a bit extreme and that's not why I'm investing. But it's why the market doesn't scare me. Too many sociopaths all want one thing: the numbers to go up. I know I'm right too. Just rewind to 2002-2008.
- fatca 13y ago
  This type of story in which they initially sentenced him to 8 years in jail, has zero deterring effect on me. As far as I am concerned, it only strengthens our libertarian resolve to break through the politically controlled monopoly on the use of force.
oofabz 13y ago
Aleynikov has lived in the US for twenty years and owns a house in Chicago. It sounds to me like he is an American programmer, not a Russian programmer. I don't see why his ancestry is relevant.
- smtddr 13y ago
  My parents owned a home and lived in USA for over 30 years... but they are, and will always be, Nigerian. Home is where the heart is. I wonder what Aleynikov would say if we asked him "Are you American or Russian? Or both?"
  - axc123 13y ago
    How does that make his ancestory relevant in this case to be quoted ?
    - salemh 13y ago
      It doesn't, the "Russian programmer" stuck out to me like a jibe as well. It isn't noteworthy, and strange they call it out so often.
- damian2000 13y ago
  Its probably a form of flattery, given that Russian Programmers who have emigrated to the west often have a high skill level.
ig1 13y ago
A lot of the comments here seem to be oblivious to the details of the original indictment: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/021110aleynikovindictment.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/021110aleyn... It pretty explicitly details how the "backup" program he wrote had flags to select what to copy and some of those flags specifically copied GS option pricing code that he had never worked on.
- Amadou 13y ago
  That's not what I see when I read it. I see that he wrote a backup script that could backup two distinct groups of files depending on what argument he passed on the command-line. While the indictment mentions that some of the files included stuff he didn't work on, it doesn't say he set flags specifically to grab stuff he hadn't worked on. Only that it was getting swept up as part of a larger backup operation. It also said he ran the backup on many occasions throughout his employment at Goldman. That doesn't sound like someone who only absconded with code after he got an offer to work at a competitor. As an aside -- I'm wondering if "the website" referenced in the filing was rapidshare. Weren't they in Germany?
  - ig1 13y ago
    I don't think your comment and my comment fundamentally agree. There are two issues at play here: 1) Did he copy propriety GS code that he had no involvement with. A lot of people seem in this thread seem to think he didn't, but as far as I can tell from the indictment it's pretty explicit that he did and I don't think that it's disputed by either side. 2) Was his intention out of malice (intention to steal trade secrets), stupidity or something in between. The first is the point I'm making without commenting on the second.
  - imroot 13y ago
    It was cloudbees, pre-acquisition by CollabNet. They hosted the subversion repository and provided file space, paid for by his credit card.
eddie_the_head 13y ago
How is this not double jeopardy?
- msandford 13y ago
  Double jeopardy is to conceptually prevent a person from going free, but then being tried again and convicted. The idea is "once you're acquitted, you're acquitted" That wouldn't be the case here since he was already convicted so additional trials could only benefit him. But really it's a judge ruling that the original trial was all effed up and that a new trial would need to take place in order to do justice.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    This is right in general but wrong on the specifics of this case. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the original, federal trial. That court threw overturned the conviction entirely; it did not order a retrial. The state prosecution was an entirely different matter, which is why they had to strain to pretend it wasn't double jeopardy. The "acts" were the same but they had decided to classify them as different, lesser crimes. In fact he had already served more time than he could have been sentenced under those, rendering the whole proceeding nothing more than a farcical publicity stunt.
    - msandford 13y ago
      Good thing I'm only friends with lawyers from grad school rather than one myself.
Mikeb85 13y ago
For everyone bringing up the GPL licence, strait from the horse's mouth: > The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP... Distributing the code within a company/organization does NOT constitute 'distribution', and does NOT require you to release your code. Edit - and in the licence itself - Version 3 of the GPL > “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations. And > To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
- revelation 13y ago
  Organization seems like an odd qualifier. Certainly you have to make the code available to everyone you delivered modified binaries to, and at GPL conditions (meaning they are then free to further distribute it, per GPL)?
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    Not according to the GSF's website. Besides, let's face it, GS employees likely don't have any 'secret' code anywhere near their computers. It likely lives on their mainframes, and only there.
    - revelation 13y ago
eliteraspberrie 13y ago
It seems Goldman Sachs attempted to commandeer the criminal justice system to retaliate against a former employee, and succeeded in doing so. It is not in the jurisdiction of police to act as arbiters of employment disputes -- that is for the civil court system. Whatever the allegations against Mr. Aleynikov, this I am sure we can all agree on.
- fatca 13y ago
  The fact that they initially sentenced him to 8 years in jail, has zero deterring effect. As far as I am concerned, it only strengthens our resolve to break through the politically controlled monopoly on the use of force.
brunooo 13y ago
Guess the Michael Lewis story (damn, he should write more again) also explains the commits to https://github.com/goldmansachs https://github.com/goldmansachs a few months ago.
rcarrigan87 13y ago
The real tragedy is how many brilliant and motivated people end up in finance nowadays and how the industry overall continues to grow into an ever greater portion of the US economy. I'm not belittling the role of finance in an advanced economy. But you would think with the incredible advances we've made in electronic exchanges and the free flow of information on the internet the role of finance would have taken a backseat. Unfortunately, Sergey is just another example (guilty or not) of wasted talent down the financial sink hole.
sanxiyn 13y ago
Let me quote from Wikipedia here: "On 8 September 2005, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that the GPL was not material to a case dealing with trade secrets derived from GPL-licensed work. Defendants argued that since it is impossible to maintain trade secrets while being compliant with GPL and distributing the work, they are not in breach of trade secrets. This argument was considered without ground."
xerophtye 13y ago
Umm.... let me get this straight, GS is required to pay the legal fees because he was an employee at GS? So if the company sues one of its employees, it has to pay for both sides? Really? PS: If i remember correctly, hadn't Sergey resigned from GS by then? I thought he was just hanging around an extra week or two to train his successors.
- warfangle 13y ago
  It's actually fairly common throughout the western world that the loser of a civil suite must supply legal fees.
  - tanzam75 13y ago
    > It's actually fairly common throughout the western world that the loser of a civil suite must supply legal fees. It is uncommon in the United States. Which is why it's surprising. In the last 200 years, American common law has diverged a great deal from British/Commonwealth common law, both in the law itself, and in how it's practiced.
qa5278217 13y ago
Odnoklassniki

240 points by gkuan 13y ago

rdtsc 13y ago

Sergey is a good Erlang programmer. He is active in on the Erlang mailing list. He wrote a cool C++ to Erlang interface. Here is his Github account: https://github.com/saleyn https://github.com/saleyn I am happy for him. He is a great asset to the open source community.

davidw 13y ago
Yeah, I didn't put two and two together until after reading the Vanity Fair article, but I'd been interacting with Sergey because we're using erlexec in a project: https://github.com/saleyn/erlexec/commits/master?page=2 https://github.com/saleyn/erlexec/commits/master?page=2 Nice, and helpful person.

Volpe 13y ago

Love the racial inclusion for no reason.

Volpe 13y ago
That was sarcasm (btw). And I was pointing out the article was pointing out the programmer was Russian for absolutely no reason. Why was it important for us to know his nationality?
- Grue3 13y ago
  I am Russian and I agree with this. Not all of us are prone to leak trade secrets, honest!

lambda 13y ago

If anyone's interested, I found the appeals court ruling finding him not guilty of violating federal law, and leading to his release, on PACER, uploaded to the Internet Archive so you can access it without a paywall via RECAP: https://ia700209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.165.0.pdf https://ia700209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.35... The basic argument hinges on the three counts, related to three laws he was alleged to have broken: the Economic Espionage Act, the National Stolen Property Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse act. The third charge was dismissed by the district court because it rested on the fact that he had either accessed systems he was not authorized to or exceeded authorized access. However, he was authorized to access the source code in question, and what he did with it afterwards has no bearing on whether he exceeded his authorization, so it doesn't fall under the CFAA. The district court did convict him on the first two counts, but the Appeals Court reversed. Their argument is that the National Stolen Property Act doesn't apply because it applies only to actual physical goods, not mere intangible ideas. Had he photocopied the source and walked out with it, or loaded it onto a thumb drive at the office and taken that with him, it would have counted as stealing a physical good, but merely uploading it to a server and downloading it onto a thumb drive later does not count. The court further argues that he did not violate the Economic Espionage Act because the clause in question he was prosecuted under specifically requires that the "trade secret ... is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce". Since Goldman Sachs' HFT trading system entirely proprietary and internal and not produced for or placed in interstate commerce, that particular law does not apply. Apparently Congress specifically intended this restriction, because earlier drafts of the statute had broader language that merely included "proprietary economic information having a value of not less than $100,000". The fact that Goldman Sachs uses the product for interstate commerce is not compelling, it had to itself be produced for or placed in interstate commerce. That last part is interesting. It implies that if you run proprietary, internal code that is not sold or intended to be sold in the future, you appear to lose federal criminal trade secret protections. It's interesting that they tried to prosecute him on theft, trade secret infringement, and exceeding authorized access, but not copyright infringement. From my reading even unpublished work is subject to copyright. Neither the original conviction nor the appeals court opinion ever addressed the copyright issue. In order for him to have stolen something, it would have had to be something of value; so why wasn't he further prosecuted for copyright violation? From the documents I read (not all are available on PACER), the copyright question never even came up. More documents from the case: Motion to dismiss the original case in district court: https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.46.0.pdf https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.35... Government's response to the motion: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.50.0.pdf http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov... Affadavit of the investigating officer: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.50.1.pdf http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov... District court's opinion dismissing the third count but refusing to dismiss the first two: https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.58.0.pdf https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.35... List of files requested in discovery, to demonstrate that what he took was insubstantial and not proprietary: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.35.0.pdf http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov... A few of the things he had downloaded were their version of the Erlang platform, which is available under the Erlang Public License, a derivative of the Mozilla Public License. So it would be more fruitful to debate the merits of that license, not the GPL. All of the currently uploaded items in the docket: https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303/gov.uscourts.nysd.358303.docket.html https://ia600209.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.35...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
beagle3 13y ago
IANAL, but if I understand correctly, to claim copyright infringement, they would have had to register the work with the library of congress, and essentially make it publicly viewable - which I assume they didn't want. Copyright in this kind of case is usable almost exclusively by GPL style licenses, where the code is already available.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Registration is not required. Registering allows you to sue for more money than if you don't register, but any creative work is automatically protected by copyright law (including full rights to control and prevent reproduction/distribution) automatically as of the moment the work is first fixed into a "tangible form of expression".
  - beagle3 13y ago
    Thanks. But wouldn't they still need to make a copy available e.g. In the court documents? That would definitely be an angle they would want to avoid
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      No, they are not required to make a full copy available to the court in order to enforce copyright. The US Copyright Office has a FAQ document which explains what registration does: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html A more detailed explanation is in this pamphlet: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Registering allows you to sue for more money than if you don't register, Maximum is $250,000 per infringement if it is registered (and possible jail time for 10 or more infringements). If it is not registered then liabilty is just (simplified version) the retail price of each work infringed. So, without registering it and without ever pricing it for sale, it could be argued that the damages would be $0.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jaryd 13y ago

For those that are interested in the backstory: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer.print http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...

anmol 13y ago
Wow, great marketing for goldman sachs. Another reason for software engineers to stay away from these large ibanks.
VladRussian2 13y ago
> during which time he sent himself, through a so-called “subversion repository,” i just can imagine how every FBI agent jumps when reading that there is a whole repository of subversion (or subversions?) out there.
nandemo 13y ago
Wow, he talked to a cop without a lawyer AND signed a confession...
stana 13y ago
Thanks for the link. Interesting read, especially the line: "The only employee of Goldman Sachs to go to jail in the aftermath of the financial crisis was the employee Goldman Sachs wanted sent to jail."
Mikeb85 13y ago
Interesting story. He seems like a good guy, but quite naive ...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

downandout 13y ago

It's very clear that Goldman is trying to punish him for leaving, while sending a message to their other programmers that if they leave, their lives will be ruined. Even if this guy ultimately wins the state trial, he will never get back the years he has spent fighting it. Goldman has already won, and in this case that is appalling.

vinkelhake 13y ago
Things always appear clear to conspiracy theorists. Do you have facts to back this up? People join and leave jobs in the financial industry every day. Is Goldman Sachs special in this regard?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Those people wearing the tinfoil hats were right.
- downandout 13y ago
  Do you have any idea how rare it is for a judge to order the alleged victim of a crime to pay the defense costs of the alleged perpetrator? If I'm a conspiracy theorist, the judge that made this ruling is as well.
- pvnick 13y ago
  Ok can we please stop with the "conspiracy theorist" label/ad hominem attacks? After the NSA revelations have shown things to be a lot worse than even the more paranoid conspiracy theorists thought, folks with an eye for corruption have earned a little wiggle room to be taken seriously.
  - vinkelhake 13y ago
    If you begin a statement with "It's very clear" then I expect you to back that statement up with facts so that the rest of us can see why it's so clear. Does it seem reasonable that Goldman Sachs want to send a message to their own programmers? Is that going to work well for them in recruiting? If anything, the NSA revelations have given conspiracy theorists carte blanche to go full steam on their theories. You'll hardly find a thread related to Google on HN without the obligatory "Well, now that we know that Google has given NSA has unfettered access to all data..."

merraksh 13y ago

which time he sent himself, through a so-called "subversion repository," 32 megabytes of source code from Goldman’s high-frequency stock-trading system. I can't help smile at the thought of what non-CS people might mistake a "subversion repository" for.

vidarh 13y ago
Just imagine the reactions you can get from talking about daemons reaping zombie children... Though given how mainstream gory video games have become, talking about Unix process management in public doesn't sound quite as shocking as it used to.

poof131 13y ago

Question: does anyone know if software patents were declared null and void, would this case still exist? It seems he only took snippets of code and not the entire system for profit. How would this case differ if software was copyrightable but not patentable (i.e. Either you stole the manuscript or you didn't)?

Amadou 13y ago
I doubt patents have anything to do with this. Patents restrict use, copyright restricts copies. AFAIK, he didn't actually run the 'stolen' software, only copied it.
Mikeb85 13y ago
Doesn't matter. Open source licences, patents, nothing matter. Code on the employer's computer is considered property, copying it is the same as stealing the actual workstation...
wglb 13y ago
Trade secrets are an entirely different category from patents. Patents require you to disclose all the details. Trade secrets, which is likely what such software is likely to be declared to be, is, well, secret. As such, it has legal protection different than patents or copyrights.

shmerl 13y ago

Here is the story covered in more detail: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Here is a page that was set up for him last year. Looks as though it hasn't been updated in a while. http://www.aleynikov.org/ http://www.aleynikov.org/

patmcguire 13y ago

The Michael Lewis article, which is more or less required reading on this: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...

OldSchool 13y ago

This type of story underscores my Icarus-inspired philosophy in business: fly high but not so high that you become an obvious target or otherwise risk getting burned. I learned relatively early that above some level (that's not even all that high), you'll find that you're dealing primarily with people whose sole purpose in life seems to be to serve their love of money and quest for validation. They are like insects drawn to a light and about as thoughtful. Suffice to say that when you find that you have to play harder and harder to make up for the stress of your daily work life, it's time to take a look at what you really want and why you're doing what you're doing.

debt 13y ago
Truth. I was talking stocks with my girlfriend. She thought it was too scary to get involved in something as potentially volatile as the stock market. I told her basically what you just described. There are many people in business that are literal sociopaths. They will bury and burn any and all barriers on their path to making an increase in share price. "I will not let this company flounder on my watch!", they hypothetically say in my mind. To these mythical business people, the share price is an extension of their character. Maybe that's a bit extreme and that's not why I'm investing. But it's why the market doesn't scare me. Too many sociopaths all want one thing: the numbers to go up. I know I'm right too. Just rewind to 2002-2008.
fatca 13y ago
This type of story in which they initially sentenced him to 8 years in jail, has zero deterring effect on me. As far as I am concerned, it only strengthens our libertarian resolve to break through the politically controlled monopoly on the use of force.

oofabz 13y ago

Aleynikov has lived in the US for twenty years and owns a house in Chicago. It sounds to me like he is an American programmer, not a Russian programmer. I don't see why his ancestry is relevant.

smtddr 13y ago
My parents owned a home and lived in USA for over 30 years... but they are, and will always be, Nigerian. Home is where the heart is. I wonder what Aleynikov would say if we asked him "Are you American or Russian? Or both?"
- axc123 13y ago
  How does that make his ancestory relevant in this case to be quoted ?
  - salemh 13y ago
    It doesn't, the "Russian programmer" stuck out to me like a jibe as well. It isn't noteworthy, and strange they call it out so often.
damian2000 13y ago
Its probably a form of flattery, given that Russian Programmers who have emigrated to the west often have a high skill level.

ig1 13y ago

A lot of the comments here seem to be oblivious to the details of the original indictment: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/021110aleynikovindictment.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/021110aleyn... It pretty explicitly details how the "backup" program he wrote had flags to select what to copy and some of those flags specifically copied GS option pricing code that he had never worked on.

Amadou 13y ago
That's not what I see when I read it. I see that he wrote a backup script that could backup two distinct groups of files depending on what argument he passed on the command-line. While the indictment mentions that some of the files included stuff he didn't work on, it doesn't say he set flags specifically to grab stuff he hadn't worked on. Only that it was getting swept up as part of a larger backup operation. It also said he ran the backup on many occasions throughout his employment at Goldman. That doesn't sound like someone who only absconded with code after he got an offer to work at a competitor. As an aside -- I'm wondering if "the website" referenced in the filing was rapidshare. Weren't they in Germany?
- ig1 13y ago
  I don't think your comment and my comment fundamentally agree. There are two issues at play here: 1) Did he copy propriety GS code that he had no involvement with. A lot of people seem in this thread seem to think he didn't, but as far as I can tell from the indictment it's pretty explicit that he did and I don't think that it's disputed by either side. 2) Was his intention out of malice (intention to steal trade secrets), stupidity or something in between. The first is the point I'm making without commenting on the second.
- imroot 13y ago
  It was cloudbees, pre-acquisition by CollabNet. They hosted the subversion repository and provided file space, paid for by his credit card.

eddie_the_head 13y ago

How is this not double jeopardy?

msandford 13y ago
Double jeopardy is to conceptually prevent a person from going free, but then being tried again and convicted. The idea is "once you're acquitted, you're acquitted" That wouldn't be the case here since he was already convicted so additional trials could only benefit him. But really it's a judge ruling that the original trial was all effed up and that a new trial would need to take place in order to do justice.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  This is right in general but wrong on the specifics of this case. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the original, federal trial. That court threw overturned the conviction entirely; it did not order a retrial. The state prosecution was an entirely different matter, which is why they had to strain to pretend it wasn't double jeopardy. The "acts" were the same but they had decided to classify them as different, lesser crimes. In fact he had already served more time than he could have been sentenced under those, rendering the whole proceeding nothing more than a farcical publicity stunt.
  - msandford 13y ago
    Good thing I'm only friends with lawyers from grad school rather than one myself.

Mikeb85 13y ago

For everyone bringing up the GPL licence, strait from the horse's mouth: > The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP... Distributing the code within a company/organization does NOT constitute 'distribution', and does NOT require you to release your code. Edit - and in the licence itself - Version 3 of the GPL > “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations. And > To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

revelation 13y ago
Organization seems like an odd qualifier. Certainly you have to make the code available to everyone you delivered modified binaries to, and at GPL conditions (meaning they are then free to further distribute it, per GPL)?
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Not according to the GSF's website. Besides, let's face it, GS employees likely don't have any 'secret' code anywhere near their computers. It likely lives on their mainframes, and only there.
  - revelation 13y ago

eliteraspberrie 13y ago

It seems Goldman Sachs attempted to commandeer the criminal justice system to retaliate against a former employee, and succeeded in doing so. It is not in the jurisdiction of police to act as arbiters of employment disputes -- that is for the civil court system. Whatever the allegations against Mr. Aleynikov, this I am sure we can all agree on.

fatca 13y ago
The fact that they initially sentenced him to 8 years in jail, has zero deterring effect. As far as I am concerned, it only strengthens our resolve to break through the politically controlled monopoly on the use of force.

brunooo 13y ago

Guess the Michael Lewis story (damn, he should write more again) also explains the commits to https://github.com/goldmansachs https://github.com/goldmansachs a few months ago.

rcarrigan87 13y ago

The real tragedy is how many brilliant and motivated people end up in finance nowadays and how the industry overall continues to grow into an ever greater portion of the US economy. I'm not belittling the role of finance in an advanced economy. But you would think with the incredible advances we've made in electronic exchanges and the free flow of information on the internet the role of finance would have taken a backseat. Unfortunately, Sergey is just another example (guilty or not) of wasted talent down the financial sink hole.

sanxiyn 13y ago

Let me quote from Wikipedia here: "On 8 September 2005, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that the GPL was not material to a case dealing with trade secrets derived from GPL-licensed work. Defendants argued that since it is impossible to maintain trade secrets while being compliant with GPL and distributing the work, they are not in breach of trade secrets. This argument was considered without ground."

xerophtye 13y ago

Umm.... let me get this straight, GS is required to pay the legal fees because he was an employee at GS? So if the company sues one of its employees, it has to pay for both sides? Really? PS: If i remember correctly, hadn't Sergey resigned from GS by then? I thought he was just hanging around an extra week or two to train his successors.

warfangle 13y ago
It's actually fairly common throughout the western world that the loser of a civil suite must supply legal fees.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  > It's actually fairly common throughout the western world that the loser of a civil suite must supply legal fees. It is uncommon in the United States. Which is why it's surprising. In the last 200 years, American common law has diverged a great deal from British/Commonwealth common law, both in the law itself, and in how it's practiced.

qa5278217 13y ago

Odnoklassniki