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.
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.