It's not like the prosecutor missed or misread an unambiguous statute. There was essentially a loophole in one of the statutes that if read narrowly suggested the trade secret had to be about a product put into commerce. The court found that the code was for an internal goldman sachs service, not a product.
And the other statute on which the prosecutor lost was because the court didn't believe code on a usb was a "good." But if it had printed on paper it would have counted. A sort of stupid distinction.
The prosecutors lost on two narrow statutory interpretations. It happens and it isn't some sort of negligence.
Had he stolen the code from Windows division of Microsoft or had he printed it on paper he'd be guilty.
So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce?
Sounds like trumped up bullshit, actually.
According to Wikipedia, this guy was also pursued by the State of New York after being released from jail (since he did nothing wrong) on the same conduct and lost his double jeopardy appeal because a State judge claimed New York was a sovereign entity from the US Federal government and so his constitutional right to not be tried multiple times for the same behavior does not exist.
The State of New York also ultimately lost by failing to show actual violation of claimed statute.
> So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce?
Goldman was performing commerce: trading securities and commodities. And the software in question was used to perform that commerce.
Before it was amended, 18 USC 1832 applied to a "product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce." The issue was what "produced for" meant. Was it enough that the product be "produced for" the purpose of effecting commerce, which the software was, or did the product itself need to be sold in commerce?
>So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce?
No, the distinction was that it was a service they used in commerce when the law only said "product." Now the law was amended to say product or service in interstate commerce.
>and so his constitutional right to not be tried multiple times for the same behavior does not exist.
Double Jeopardy only applies to to the same sovereign entity. If you do something that breaks federal and state law, that is on you.
That is how it has always been, it wasn't surprising that the court didn't agree with double jeopardy.
And the other statute on which the prosecutor lost was because the court didn't believe code on a usb was a "good." But if it had printed on paper it would have counted. A sort of stupid distinction.
The prosecutors lost on two narrow statutory interpretations. It happens and it isn't some sort of negligence.
Had he stolen the code from Windows division of Microsoft or had he printed it on paper he'd be guilty.