7 ms·

How is that clear? I haven't followed the case, but it seems as though he copied important intellectual property (HFT code) when he left the firm. I'm sure if a

by Permit 13y ago

How is that clear? I haven't followed the case, but it seems as though he copied important intellectual property (HFT code) when he left the firm. I'm sure if a developer at Apple or Microsoft downloaded the Windows or OS X kernel code when they left that they would face charges of some kind as well.

downandout 13y ago
I read the original (very detailed) article. According to it, everything he copied was non-proprietary. Almost all of it was open source stuff.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Changes to open source stuff may or may not be proprietary, depending...
- horridrats 13y ago
  Not according to Goldman Sachs: "While some of those files included open source software, the Court determined that 'a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code.'"
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Sounds like two different definitions of the word "proprietary" are involved here: (1) Mechanical changes specific to the company -- this could be as simple as hardcoded hostnames that match the deployment environment. (2) Implementations of algorithms. In this case it isn't the code that is proprietary so much as the algorithm that the code is an expression of. I suspect that downandout is talking about defintion #1 and the court is talking about definition #2. Hard to say without seeing the code itself.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Presumably 1 subsumes 2.
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  According to it, everything he copied was non-proprietary. Almost all of it was open source stuff. That doesn't make any sense. If the code truly were FOSS, why on earth would he copy it from his employer when he could eliminate legal risk by downloading it off the open internet? We know he's not stupid.
  - jamesjporter 13y ago
    The story I read about it claimed the following: He had made changes/improvements to various FOSS projects he was using at Goldman that he wanted to submit as patches upstream but his bosses wouldn't let him. He figured that since he was leaving he might as well take the FOSS code he had modified with him so he could submit patches later. The legality of this maneuver is tenuous at best, as others in this thread have noted, but in my opinion probably doesn't merit years of hounding prosecution and criminal charges.
    - auctiontheory 13y ago
      Okay. That's interesting. I guess it could be true. Or it could also be a very creative and barely plausible explanation that happens to fit the provable facts of the case. It certainly requires us to accept an astonishing degree of naïveté in an otherwise very smart guy.
      - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
        > It certainly requires us to accept an astonishing degree of naïveté in an otherwise very smart guy. You haven't met many programmers, have you? (I'm speaking of myself as well as friends and associates, here.)
bsimpson 13y ago
There was a really well-written feature on the case. As I recall, he used and modified open source code in his system. He tried to push his changes upstream, but ran into political pressure from inside of Goldman, so he tried to make a personal copy of the libraries he modified. You can certainly make the case that Goldman paid for that code, and if they didn't want it pushed upstream that's their prerogative, but it's a very different thing to sell trade secrets to a competitor (how the mass media has reported the case) and to make a backup of an open-source library you modified at work.
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  The article you reference is linked to within the posted article.
- wtvanhest 13y ago
  If all the changes were only his idea, this may be a reasonable assertion, but at large firms like goldman, the modifications he was making to code very, very likely came from insight from other team members. If he incorporated other's insight in to his open source code by adding more code, I would view his actions in an extremely negative light.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    Of course. At an investment bank such as GS, no code or algorithm is written that isn't checked by traders and managers...
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      Very dry humor!
      - Mikeb85 13y ago
        Not humour, fact. You think billions of dollars a day in transactions are going to be entrusted to a single person writing code? Every single line, algorithm, and bracket is going to be examined by a dozen people over and over. When a single bug can do a billion dollars in damage or bankrupt you, nothing is left to chance...
adamnemecek 13y ago
Kind of off-topic but the Mac OS X kernel code is actually (mostly?) open source. http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/

by Permit 13y ago

downandout 13y ago

I read the original (very detailed) article. According to it, everything he copied was non-proprietary. Almost all of it was open source stuff.

dllthomas 13y ago
Changes to open source stuff may or may not be proprietary, depending...
horridrats 13y ago
Not according to Goldman Sachs: "While some of those files included open source software, the Court determined that 'a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code.'"
- Amadou 13y ago
  Sounds like two different definitions of the word "proprietary" are involved here: (1) Mechanical changes specific to the company -- this could be as simple as hardcoded hostnames that match the deployment environment. (2) Implementations of algorithms. In this case it isn't the code that is proprietary so much as the algorithm that the code is an expression of. I suspect that downandout is talking about defintion #1 and the court is talking about definition #2. Hard to say without seeing the code itself.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Presumably 1 subsumes 2.
auctiontheory 13y ago
According to it, everything he copied was non-proprietary. Almost all of it was open source stuff. That doesn't make any sense. If the code truly were FOSS, why on earth would he copy it from his employer when he could eliminate legal risk by downloading it off the open internet? We know he's not stupid.
- jamesjporter 13y ago
  The story I read about it claimed the following: He had made changes/improvements to various FOSS projects he was using at Goldman that he wanted to submit as patches upstream but his bosses wouldn't let him. He figured that since he was leaving he might as well take the FOSS code he had modified with him so he could submit patches later. The legality of this maneuver is tenuous at best, as others in this thread have noted, but in my opinion probably doesn't merit years of hounding prosecution and criminal charges.
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    Okay. That's interesting. I guess it could be true. Or it could also be a very creative and barely plausible explanation that happens to fit the provable facts of the case. It certainly requires us to accept an astonishing degree of naïveté in an otherwise very smart guy.
    - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      > It certainly requires us to accept an astonishing degree of naïveté in an otherwise very smart guy. You haven't met many programmers, have you? (I'm speaking of myself as well as friends and associates, here.)

bsimpson 13y ago

There was a really well-written feature on the case. As I recall, he used and modified open source code in his system. He tried to push his changes upstream, but ran into political pressure from inside of Goldman, so he tried to make a personal copy of the libraries he modified. You can certainly make the case that Goldman paid for that code, and if they didn't want it pushed upstream that's their prerogative, but it's a very different thing to sell trade secrets to a competitor (how the mass media has reported the case) and to make a backup of an open-source library you modified at work.

HelloMcFly 13y ago
The article you reference is linked to within the posted article.
wtvanhest 13y ago
If all the changes were only his idea, this may be a reasonable assertion, but at large firms like goldman, the modifications he was making to code very, very likely came from insight from other team members. If he incorporated other's insight in to his open source code by adding more code, I would view his actions in an extremely negative light.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Of course. At an investment bank such as GS, no code or algorithm is written that isn't checked by traders and managers...
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Very dry humor!
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      Not humour, fact. You think billions of dollars a day in transactions are going to be entrusted to a single person writing code? Every single line, algorithm, and bracket is going to be examined by a dozen people over and over. When a single bug can do a billion dollars in damage or bankrupt you, nothing is left to chance...

adamnemecek 13y ago

Kind of off-topic but the Mac OS X kernel code is actually (mostly?) open source. http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/