I'm just fine with Aleynikov's conviction being overturned. Again, the charges against him seemed ambitious.
"Ambitious" is a bit charitable, in this context.
"Patently vacuous" -- to an extent that suggested, at the very least, a breakdown in the internal controls and safeguards (on the part of both the FBI and the prosecutor's office) designed to present precisely this kind of a fiasco from happening -- might be a better description.
You are being ridiculous. Aleynikov definitely violated New York trade secret law. He got off the federal charge because the trading software wasn't a product for sale, it was a product for internal use. The law was poorly drafted and once that came to light it was immediately fixed.
Like Rayiner said, in layman's terms, he got off on a technicality.
The FBI and DOJ being on the wrong side of a close call in statutory interpretation isn't "patently vacuous."
Aleynikov definitely violated New York trade secret law.
That's not what the court found. Otherwise the charges wouldn't have been dropped.
It sounds like you're conflating the issue of whether he violated the "spirit" of the law (or whether he was, in your view, just plain morally culpable somehow) -- versus what the law actually had to say about his actions.
Like Rayiner said, in layman's terms, he got off on a technicality.
If you want to minimize any sense of exoneration or vindication the accused might want to derive from the court's decision, by saying he "got off on a technicality", that's fine.
But to claim that he "definitely violated" the law when the courts found that he definitely did not -- I'm just not sure I see the point in that.
"Ambitious" is a bit charitable, in this context.
"Patently vacuous" -- to an extent that suggested, at the very least, a breakdown in the internal controls and safeguards (on the part of both the FBI and the prosecutor's office) designed to present precisely this kind of a fiasco from happening -- might be a better description.