4 ms·

I don't think it is well established that we he took was an algorithm or any such thing. Michael Lewis wrote a big article in Vanity Fair which I suggest you l

by bravo22 11y ago

I don't think it is well established that we he took was an algorithm or any such thing. Michael Lewis wrote a big article in Vanity Fair which I suggest you look at. He gathered a number of experts who looked at the evidence presented at his federal trial and concluded that what he took was modified open source code to run the queues, do messaging, etc. Boiler plate code to create the infrastructure. This is what GS is calling "proprietary source code", since he made the changes on GS dime therefore it is proprietary to them.

tptacek 11y ago
That's a common misunderstanding. According to the Second Circuit: In addition to proprietary source code, Aleynikov also transferred some open source software licensed for use by the public that was mixed in with Goldman’s proprietary code. However, a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code than had open source software.
- bravo22 11y ago
  The Second Circuit is not an expert on software. It is an expert in law and modified open source code becomes proprietary code in eyes of the law for the purposes of GS employment agreement. They're not parsing how GPL or some other license might have applied. I encourage you to look at Michael Lewis's article[1]. This passage is relevant: "As Goldman hadn’t permitted him to release his debugged or improved code back to the public—possibly in violation of the original free licenses, which often stated that improvements must be publicly shared—the only way to get his hands on these was to take the Goldman code. That he had taken, in the bargain, some code that wasn’t open source, which happened to be contained in the same files as the open-source code, surprised no one. Grabbing a bunch of files that contained both open-source and non-open-source code was an efficient, quick, and dirty way to collect the open-source code, even if the open-source code was the only part that interested him." [1] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman...
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Once again: his own lawyer stipulated these facts in his criminal summation. It's not in dispute; it is undisputed. He did not simply taken open-source software. You can add this to the list of things Lewis got wrong; it's a large and growing one. As Aleynikov concedes in his motion papers, the code he took from Goldman Sachs included a "purposefully designed" portion of the Goldman Sachs "proprietary, custom-built trading system." Indeed, the evidence showed that Aleynikov took a significant percentage of the proprietary source code for that system. While Aleynikov attempted to show that there was open source code embedded within the proprietary code and to identify the files in which that might be true, his expert witness was only able to identify one file among those taken by Aleynikov that both bore a Goldman Sachs copyright banner and appeared to contain open source code.
    - bravo22 11y ago
      This does not contradict what Lewis writes or what I mentioned on my first post. The "proprietary, custom-built trading system." has a lot of infrastructure code to handle the incoming volume, ensure nothing gets dropped, and trades get evaluated. He doesn't seem to have taken the "decision making" part which would have been their secret sauce. Sure, the modified open-source code might have been protected by GS employment agreement but that doesn't mean that it was their secret sauce. It was infrastructure/boiler plate code. Additionally the fact that a code has a GS copyright banner doesn't mean that it was all brand-spanking-new GS-unique code. Even Lewis's article talks about the fact that a single file had open-source code and modified open-source code, aka proprietary code. This subtle language difference is exactly how a lawyer confuses the jury and it is difficult to counteract. Remember the SCO Unix v Novell fiasco!? Lewis brought together experts who reviewed the evidence on record, i.e. the actual source codes submitted at evidence at his first trial and they reviewed it and found it to be derivative open-source code to run queues, and run infrastructure.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Have you read any of the court filings? Can you point to the one where it's established that Goldman's proprietary code is merely modified open source code? Even Aleynikov doesn't appear to be arguing that. Both sides in the trial had expert witnesses --- the Second Circuit didn't merely conclude on its own that the code was proprietary (in fact, they can't do that: appeals courts resolve disputes of law, not of fact). Your source, by the way, does not support your assertion about Lewis contracting experts reviewing the source code presented as evidence during the trial. Which makes sense: what would make you think Lewis would have access to it in the first place?

by bravo22 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

That's a common misunderstanding. According to the Second Circuit: In addition to proprietary source code, Aleynikov also transferred some open source software licensed for use by the public that was mixed in with Goldman’s proprietary code. However, a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code than had open source software.

bravo22 11y ago
The Second Circuit is not an expert on software. It is an expert in law and modified open source code becomes proprietary code in eyes of the law for the purposes of GS employment agreement. They're not parsing how GPL or some other license might have applied. I encourage you to look at Michael Lewis's article[1]. This passage is relevant: "As Goldman hadn’t permitted him to release his debugged or improved code back to the public—possibly in violation of the original free licenses, which often stated that improvements must be publicly shared—the only way to get his hands on these was to take the Goldman code. That he had taken, in the bargain, some code that wasn’t open source, which happened to be contained in the same files as the open-source code, surprised no one. Grabbing a bunch of files that contained both open-source and non-open-source code was an efficient, quick, and dirty way to collect the open-source code, even if the open-source code was the only part that interested him." [1] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman...
- tptacek 11y ago
  Once again: his own lawyer stipulated these facts in his criminal summation. It's not in dispute; it is undisputed. He did not simply taken open-source software. You can add this to the list of things Lewis got wrong; it's a large and growing one. As Aleynikov concedes in his motion papers, the code he took from Goldman Sachs included a "purposefully designed" portion of the Goldman Sachs "proprietary, custom-built trading system." Indeed, the evidence showed that Aleynikov took a significant percentage of the proprietary source code for that system. While Aleynikov attempted to show that there was open source code embedded within the proprietary code and to identify the files in which that might be true, his expert witness was only able to identify one file among those taken by Aleynikov that both bore a Goldman Sachs copyright banner and appeared to contain open source code.
  - bravo22 11y ago
    This does not contradict what Lewis writes or what I mentioned on my first post. The "proprietary, custom-built trading system." has a lot of infrastructure code to handle the incoming volume, ensure nothing gets dropped, and trades get evaluated. He doesn't seem to have taken the "decision making" part which would have been their secret sauce. Sure, the modified open-source code might have been protected by GS employment agreement but that doesn't mean that it was their secret sauce. It was infrastructure/boiler plate code. Additionally the fact that a code has a GS copyright banner doesn't mean that it was all brand-spanking-new GS-unique code. Even Lewis's article talks about the fact that a single file had open-source code and modified open-source code, aka proprietary code. This subtle language difference is exactly how a lawyer confuses the jury and it is difficult to counteract. Remember the SCO Unix v Novell fiasco!? Lewis brought together experts who reviewed the evidence on record, i.e. the actual source codes submitted at evidence at his first trial and they reviewed it and found it to be derivative open-source code to run queues, and run infrastructure.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Have you read any of the court filings? Can you point to the one where it's established that Goldman's proprietary code is merely modified open source code? Even Aleynikov doesn't appear to be arguing that. Both sides in the trial had expert witnesses --- the Second Circuit didn't merely conclude on its own that the code was proprietary (in fact, they can't do that: appeals courts resolve disputes of law, not of fact). Your source, by the way, does not support your assertion about Lewis contracting experts reviewing the source code presented as evidence during the trial. Which makes sense: what would make you think Lewis would have access to it in the first place?