Comments on: The legal jujitsu of Goldman Sachs http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: traducator daneza romana http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-53426 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:54:19 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-53426 Everything is very open with a really clear clarification of the issues. It was truly informative. Your website is very helpful. Many thanks for sharing!

]]>
By: MrRFox http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47781 Tue, 06 Aug 2013 09:21:50 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47781 A disingenuous display of hypocrisy by an author who has no problem with financiers complicit in drug-running and homicide getting a free pass on any sort of sanction or prosecution, as demonstrated in the credibility-destroying post here –

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/20 12/12/13/why-the-us-didnt-prosecute-hsbc  /

The comment stream to the cited post is perhaps the best-ever on any Reuters blog, something those who still retain any admiration for the author would do well to study.

]]>
By: TehZeppo http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47780 Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:57:27 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47780 Well, the code is the property of the employer so taking it is wrong. The eight year sentence is monstrous, however, given the nature and extent of what it was that was taken.

Criminal penalties may be sought where removal of intellectual property was found to be unlawful but the standard of proof required of the prosecution is much higher than in civil cases.
Civil remedies are sought in cases of negligence, etc.

]]>
By: Dollared http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47777 Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:36:45 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47777 What Ken and Barry said. And thanks for saying this, Felix. If the DOJ cannot resist the banks and instead treat them like clients, then there is literally no hope of oversight. It’s as if Elliot Ness spent his time helping the liquor smugglers fix their traffic tickets.

]]>
By: frdp http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47776 Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:25:43 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47776 I am surprised that you still think otherwise–they help make the laws that supposedly govern them.

]]>
By: Barry_D http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47775 Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:53:17 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47775 Also, GS is guilty of financial frauds, to the tune of trillions of dollars. But IIRC, nobody has done any time.

Let me repeat – *nobody* has done *any* time.

]]>
By: dfinberg http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47773 Sun, 04 Aug 2013 23:35:54 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47773 Ken, under most licenses GS wouldn’t have to give mods back to the community. See section 2 of the GPL, “You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.” Goldman ain’t handing out their code on street corners.

]]>
By: TotesEmosh http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47771 Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:04:46 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47771 This is a horrible case, which I hadn’t heard about before. What I suppose most people don’t understand is that that source code from one place is generally going to be of very little use to anyone at another company. As mentioned in the article, the value would be in stealing algorithms, historical data, etc. It sounds like the code talked about here is very different.

But the main issue here is that companies like this encourage and even demand people work all hours, at the office and from home. Results results results. Sure, use open source if it works, sure ignore those open source licenses, yeah, take bits home and work on them – and then suddenly when they want to, use the very working practices they encouraged to prosecute you! Makes me sick.

]]>
By: KenG_CA http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47770 Sat, 03 Aug 2013 13:34:12 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47770 Absinthe and WaltFrench, you are correct that whatever you do for the company while they are paying you is their property, and you shouldn’t take code, but that is a civil matter, not a criminal one. There have been many cases in the past where former employees brought some of their work to their new jobs, but they were sued, not prosecuted.

Also, GS is guilty of violating open source licenses, but not giving their mods back. That is a key part of almost every open source licensing agreement. And, as we have noticed over the last few years, the government has prosecuted individuals who have violated agreements that were entered into over the internet – if you do not adhere to the licensing terms for open source, which you entered into by using a computer, you are just as guilty of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has been used to prosecute and convict people whose crime has been to break user agreements, not laws.

]]>
By: BrianTimoney http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/08/02/the-legal-jujitsu-of-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-47766 Sat, 03 Aug 2013 02:15:40 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22306#comment-47766 Felix:

A common misunderstanding about open source programming code is that because it is “free” it is completely without restriction. In fact, most “known” open source libraries are released under a license (e.g. GNU, BSD, Apache, etc) that designates the terms of usage including whether there are obligations to contribute improvements back into the common code base. So even if a license grants free and unlimited use for commercial purposes, it certainly does NOT grant the user permission to remove the license terms altogether from the code.

Lewis’ piece strongly implies a) that Goldman had little interest in contributing improvements to open source libraries even when a license dictated that as a rule of the road and b) much more damning that they removed the license from the code and slapped their own ownership language on the code. You simply can’t assert that just because code resides on your server.

By removing the original license terms and intermingling in-house code with open source libraries, Goldman was able to spin the govt a tale of theft where there was mostly shoddy housekeeping due to Goldman’s insistence on ignoring the open source rules of the road.

Interestingly, in a bit of corporate window dressing, Goldman does have a GitHub account ( https://github.com/goldmansachs/gs-colle ctions) no doubt to boost it’s geek cred albeit with a FAQ that reads a bit rich in light of Lewis’ account.

BT

]]>