US court rules, Code isn't physical property

[techbeck]

In a ruling today it was decided that, under the US National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), electronic code cannot be a stolen good because it cannot be physically obtained. Wired reports that the written decision was handed down today from the US Court of Appeals, overturning a lower court's ruling that sentenced a Goldman Sachs programmer to an eight-year prison stint for downloading some of the firm's stock-trading source code. According to the judges, the programmer, named Sergey Aleynikov, could not be guilty under either the NSPA or the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA), both of which were used by US prosecutors in a 2010 trial to imprison Aleynikov.

Since Aleynikov neither obtained "physical control" over the code nor "deprived [Goldman] of its use," he could not have offended the NSPA. Additionally, since the code Aleynikov downloaded wasn't "produced for" or "placed in" interstate or foreign commerce, his actions could not be a violation of the EEA. While the decision ? on its face ? does imply that electronic code is not physical property, it's important to remember that the judges ruled that the particular acts used to prosecute Aleynikov cannot be interpreted to cover the theft of code. In a concurring opinion, judge Guido Calabresi said "it is hard for me to conclude that Congress, in this law, actually meant to exempt the kind of behavior in which Aleynikov engaged," and he hopes that it will "return to the issue" and clarify what is criminal and what is not.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/11/2942223/electronic-code-not-physical-property-us-court-ruling

[The_Decimator]

Okay, now, Microsoft, hand over the code to Longhorn.

[remixedcat]

No! Give it to me!!

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

In a ruling today it was decided that, under the US National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), electronic code cannot be a stolen good because it cannot be physically obtained.

1. Laptop contains source code for commercial product

2. Laptop is stolen

3. ???

4. Profit!

[SiCKX]

Yeah, but intellectual property still exists.

[Memphis]

1. Laptop contains source code for commercial product

2. Laptop is stolen

3. ???

4. Profit!

Makes sense, stolen code is a copyright issue, unless you believe the definition of stealing is the same as the MPAA and the RIAA.

[Jose_49]

Oh sh*t! :s

Yeah, but intellectual property still exists.

I hope they do remember that...

[primexx]

yea this has been obvious for a long time.

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

Makes sense, stolen code is a copyright issue, unless you believe the definition of stealing is the same as the MPAA and the RIAA.

He didn't steal my identity, he merely copied it. Therefore, it is illogical to call it identity theft.

[Hum]

Cool -- now I'm free to sell a million copies of Windows ! :woot:

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

too bad it does not state if it covers compiled code just mentions source code.

[winlonghorn]

Ok, so as an example, let's use video games. I imagine that there will come a time (maybe not for a long time, but at some point) when they will become digital only. So what they are saying is that when that happens, the developers no longer have the same rights to the game because it is digital now? Isn't that a bit backwards? :s lol

[firey]

Ok, so as an example, let's use video games. I imagine that there will come a time (maybe not for a long time, but at some point) when they will become digital only. So what they are saying is that when that happens, the developers no longer have the same rights to the game because it is digital now? Isn't that a bit backwards? :s lol

No what they are saying is the lines of code that make up the game (not the compiled game) is what's not protected. The code != finished product. Just like all the parts to a swing set isn't the swingset.

This doesn't mean companies have to go open source. What it means is that if someone legally (not via hacking, etc) obtains a copy of Source Code it can be released, used, shared, etc completely free. So someone at MS could leak the entire windows SOURCE it would have to be in source format, and MS couldn't claim it as theft.

However many companies do have policies in place that any code written in the building must remain in the building / cannot be released or copied, etc. Most of these are in signed contracts which would still be held valid.

[winlonghorn]

No what they are saying is the lines of code that make up the game (not the compiled game) is what's not protected. The code != finished product. Just like all the parts to a swing set isn't the swingset.

This doesn't mean companies have to go open source. What it means is that if someone legally (not via hacking, etc) obtains a copy of Source Code it can be released, used, shared, etc completely free. So someone at MS could leak the entire windows SOURCE it would have to be in source format, and MS couldn't claim it as theft.

However many companies do have policies in place that any code written in the building must remain in the building / cannot be released or copied, etc. Most of these are in signed contracts which would still be held valid.

Ok, I see what they are saying now. Thank you!

[Farstrider]

Since Aleynikov neither obtained "physical control" over the code nor "deprived [Goldman] of its use,"

So when I download music (hypothetically speaking) I'm also not obtaining "physical control" over the music nor "deprived [Whoever] of its use," :D

[Memphis]

He didn't steal my identity, he merely copied it. Therefore, it is illogical to call it identity theft.

Absolutely its oxymoronic, the better term in English is identity fraud.

[Bryan R.]

He didn't steal my identity, he merely copied it. Therefore, it is illogical to call it identity theft.

I am so tired of hearing this. It's so cliche at this point. It's called theft because the result is in fact theft of something, usually currency. There is actually a term "identity cloning" where someone simply uses your identity and it doesn't involve theft.

And in any case, why does it matter what some age old term is? What makes it okay to define today's piracy by "identity theft". Many times terms are coined that are inaccurate and here you and others are trying to use this inaccuracy to define something else.

[Farstrider]

Absolutely its oxymoronic, the better term in English is identity fraud.

You should not use such big words here, people will think you are speaking about a very stupid ox! :laugh: That said, I do agree with what you say!

[CentralDogma]

Usualy a case like this, an employee stealing source code, would be handled in a Non-discloser or Non-compete agreement signed upon hiring.

If Goldman Sachs didn?t do this, they?re in a very bad position legally and they should consider changing this immediately. If they did do this, then their lawyer is incompetent for not making use of it and instead using two marginally related laws.

[rfirth]

Usualy a case like this, an employee stealing source code, would be handled in a Non-discloser or Non-compete agreement signed upon hiring.

If Goldman Sachs didn?t do this, they?re in a very bad position legally and they should consider changing this immediately. If they did do this, then their lawyer is incompetent for not making use of it and instead using two marginally related laws.

I'm sure they did have an NDA. They're just looking for more serious charges than merely [not saying that this isn't serious] violating an NDA to make an example of him. You don't get 8 years in prison for violating an NDA.

[Growled Member]

Cool -- now I'm free to sell a million copies of Windows ! :woot:

Just try it. :laugh:

[FloatingFatMan]

So, just what does this decision have to do with current lawsuits in Germany? AFAIK, German and EU law, are NOT based on legal precedent, especially foreign legal precedent, unlike US law.

[RubenStein]

I'm sure they did have an NDA. They're just looking for more serious charges than merely [not saying that this isn't serious] violating an NDA to make an example of him. You don't get 8 years in prison for violating an NDA.

Besides since he DIDN'T share the source code with anyone else he hasn't technically violated any NDA or non-compete clause.

[Argi]

If you read the ruling more clearly, it's not considered physical property because it wasn't put on a physical medium and THEN taken out the country - it was uploaded to a remote server, he left, and then retrieved it [and made it physical]. If he put it on a USB stick and then took it out, then he'd be considered guilty.

I don't agree with that personally but that's the logic behind it.