3 ms·

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 cod

by 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?
- bravo22 11y ago
  Can you point to one instance where GS argues that it was the secret algorithm? They merely say code related to the trading platform. Lewis had access to the source code because it is presented as evidence in a trial and therefore matter of public record. No one from GS has said that what he has taken was an algorithm or anything related to decision making. Not one person. I never said the Second Circuit resolved a dispute about it being proprietary code. The defendant's own lawyer doesn't dispute that it was proprietary. But merely being proprietary is not sufficient for a trade secret violation. If you modify a config file for Apache that modified config file becomes proprietary but it is most likely not an essential trade secret that is the core of your business that someone else couldn't have come up with something similar to solve your problem. GS lawyer's say that proprietary code WAS trade secret and essential, whereas defendant says no it was modified open source code used for queueing etc. The jury is not sophisticated enough to differentiate between the two. See any patent case where a BS software invention is held up as unique.

by bravo22 11y ago

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?

bravo22 11y ago
Can you point to one instance where GS argues that it was the secret algorithm? They merely say code related to the trading platform. Lewis had access to the source code because it is presented as evidence in a trial and therefore matter of public record. No one from GS has said that what he has taken was an algorithm or anything related to decision making. Not one person. I never said the Second Circuit resolved a dispute about it being proprietary code. The defendant's own lawyer doesn't dispute that it was proprietary. But merely being proprietary is not sufficient for a trade secret violation. If you modify a config file for Apache that modified config file becomes proprietary but it is most likely not an essential trade secret that is the core of your business that someone else couldn't have come up with something similar to solve your problem. GS lawyer's say that proprietary code WAS trade secret and essential, whereas defendant says no it was modified open source code used for queueing etc. The jury is not sophisticated enough to differentiate between the two. See any patent case where a BS software invention is held up as unique.