3 ms·
Didn't the court rule that the secrets were not subject to protection under the law? It sounds an awful lot like the court ruled that no theft occurred, regardl
by lukeschlather 12y ago
Didn't the court rule that the secrets were not subject to protection under the law? It sounds an awful lot like the court ruled that no theft occurred, regardless of your definition.
- tptacek 12y agoRead Calabresi's opinion in the appeals court case overturning the conviction: http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/sites/tsi.brooklaw.edu/files/filings/united-states-v-aleynikov/20120411calabresi039s-concurrence.pdf http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/sites/tsi.brooklaw.edu/files/filings... The gist is: everyone agrees the conviction needs to be overturned by the letter of the law, and so it was, but that's because the law was silly, which is why it was immediately changed by unanimous consent in the Senate and a 388-4 vote in the House in a bill specifically mentioning Aleynikov. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/senate-section/article/S6978-3 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/sen...