4 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThe article you reference is linked to within the posted article.
- wtvanhest 13y agoIf 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 agoOf course. At an investment bank such as GS, no code or algorithm is written that isn't checked by traders and managers...
- jessaustin 13y agoVery dry humor!
- Mikeb85 13y agoNot 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...
- gknoy 13y agoI think his reference was to the debacle at Knight, where what that level of rigor did NOT happen. Or, it happened, but was insufficient.