Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackbagboys | Hacker News Reader

To extend and correct your analogy, if you accuse your neighbor of stealing your vase, I would hope the cops spend some time investigating whether a) there was actually a vase to begin with and b) he actually took it, before they haul him off to prison.

Determining whether or not a crime has actually occurred is usually an essential part of a criminal investigation.

View on HN

But based on the facts of the case, the analogy is more like: you accuse your neighbor of stealing your rare Chinese vase. Evidence shows that he did in fact take your vase. He's charged under a law for stealing historic artifacts. But after being convicted, an appellate court interprets the law not to apply because while your vase is rare, it's not "historic."

Except you still have your vase, he just made a perfect copy using a Star Trek-style replicator.

You should go back to reddit, my friend.

This is not a meaningful distinction in this case, as AFAIK it's about misappropriation of secrets rather than loss of property, so that isn't meant to be the same in the two presented scenarios.

Didn't the court rule that the secrets were not subject to protection under the law? It sounds an awful lot like the court ruled that no theft occurred, regardless of your definition.

Read Calabresi's opinion in the appeals court case overturning the conviction:

http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/sites/tsi.brooklaw.edu/files/filings...

The gist is: everyone agrees the conviction needs to be overturned by the letter of the law, and so it was, but that's because the law was silly, which is why it was immediately changed by unanimous consent in the Senate and a 388-4 vote in the House in a bill specifically mentioning Aleynikov.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/sen...

One flaw in your analogy: The FBI doesn't "haul you off to prison". There's a criminal trial that happens in between those two points.

"Jail", then.

The analogy omits the thorough criminal trial process that led to his imprisonment, suggesting it was all because the FBI didn't investigate properly.

In actuality he got out because an appeals court found a loophole in the phrasing of the Economic Espionage Act -- which was immediately closed by Congress at the behest of the judge. [1] It had nothing to do with the lack of investigative thoroughness on the part of the FBI.

[1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051:

Reply on news.ycombinator.com