"It is quite clear that he did not violate the spirit of the law."
Very, very clearly, everyone from the legislature to the judiciary is in agreement that he violated the spirit of the law.
Even the judge who overturned the conviction said it was hard for him to believe that Congress didn't mean for the law to make his actions criminal. And then Congress immediately updated the letter of the law, unanimously, all the while explaining how it's unfortunate the previous letter of the law didn't capture the spirit of what they intended, specifically mentioning this case.
Also, the "it's just a notebook with scribbled down thoughts" analogy is poor. That implies that it's just his own thoughts he took. He uploaded 500,000+ lines of source code, then tried to cover up his tracks. That is exfiltrating extensive, proprietary trade secrets and was repeatedly cited by Congress as just the sort of activity they wished to criminalize in the Economic Espionage Act.
By the way, I don't think he should serve any more time. The sentence was too harsh IMO. But there is no question it is (now) illegal activity, because Congress specifically updated the law to make his exact actions illegal, naming him personally.
(Of course, they weren't technically illegal at the time he did them, according to the appellate court, which is why he was set free.)
He did not "try to cover up his tracks", he did what he'd do basically every day as a normal software developer doing his job. The "encrypted it and uploaded it to a server in Germany" is a red herring that shows exactly how inept the judiciary was in interpreting his actions. Why does it matter that the server was in Germany? Isn't it common sense that he would encrypt any data he uploads?
And it's nonsensical to not try and interpret exactly what it is he copied and why he did so. As the vanity fair article points out, he did not in fact copy any of the vast amounts of valuable data he had access to. (He had access to everything!). But he chose tedious infrastructure code instead, to get a sense of what non-proprietary libraries that were used
> he chose tedious infrastructure code instead, to get a sense of what non-proprietary libraries that were used
That is a generous speculation regarding his motives. As GS notes in their response to Vanity Fair, "While some of those files included open source software, the Court determined that 'a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code.'" (emphasis mine)
But as far as whether what he did violated the spirit, and now letter of the law we have a conclusive answer direct from Congress: Yes, he did.
The trade secrets are the algorithms for trading. He did not touch those.
He took a very small amount of open source code that was mixed with proprietary code. This code may have been illegally obtained by Goldman Sachs due to common open source licenses requiring that improvements also be open sourced.
He was writing a new software in a different language. He was not stealing a platform to build code upon.
He was a very good programmer who was underpaid and mistreated. His own colleagues were coached to make him appear guilty of stealing 100% proprietary code. The majority of the code was open source. I find that to be dishonest testimony.
Very, very clearly, everyone from the legislature to the judiciary is in agreement that he violated the spirit of the law.
Even the judge who overturned the conviction said it was hard for him to believe that Congress didn't mean for the law to make his actions criminal. And then Congress immediately updated the letter of the law, unanimously, all the while explaining how it's unfortunate the previous letter of the law didn't capture the spirit of what they intended, specifically mentioning this case.
Also, the "it's just a notebook with scribbled down thoughts" analogy is poor. That implies that it's just his own thoughts he took. He uploaded 500,000+ lines of source code, then tried to cover up his tracks. That is exfiltrating extensive, proprietary trade secrets and was repeatedly cited by Congress as just the sort of activity they wished to criminalize in the Economic Espionage Act.
By the way, I don't think he should serve any more time. The sentence was too harsh IMO. But there is no question it is (now) illegal activity, because Congress specifically updated the law to make his exact actions illegal, naming him personally.
(Of course, they weren't technically illegal at the time he did them, according to the appellate court, which is why he was set free.)