This was an exaggeration that I did not think would be taken literally. We had updates as the case progressed. I would guess about once a month. These updates were on the corporate intranet home page which generally contained about 5 links to 'external news' or something.
>He WAS absolutely trying to steal code. Goldman high-frequency code isn't great...
You have written this in a weird way. I agree he was trying to steal code. The quality of what he stole is not relevant. The way you have written this, it could be read: "He tried to steal high-frequency code". This is very much debatable. I could easily argue that Log4J is part of Goldman's high-frequency code.
He did try to cover his tracks. What he did was wrong and he knew at the time it was wrong. Six years later, does the punishment fit the crime?
>He wasn't planning on selling it. He was planning on taking it to Teza
Yes. This is the interesting point. He wasn't planning on selling it because there is no market for it. By this, I mean that there is no place he could list the code for purchase because:
1. It would be illegal and other companies frown on that kind of thing (at least on paper).
2. The code would not be worth much without an understanding of what it does in the wider ecosystem.
Point two is key. Sergey understood the code. He was uploading it to help him remember the work he had done at Goldman's. There is very much a market for, "I did XYZ at Goldman's, I can do it for you too." I have no doubt that he would have been able to do it again without the source code, but he wanted his 'notes'.
GS didn't want him to apply his trade at another firm. Hence the 'vindictive employer' remark.
How long before another developer gets harassed by Goldman's because they printed off some technical documentation before leaving? What if the documentation is printed a month before leaving? ...a year? ...where is the line, exactly?
This was an exaggeration that I did not think would be taken literally. We had updates as the case progressed. I would guess about once a month. These updates were on the corporate intranet home page which generally contained about 5 links to 'external news' or something.
>He WAS absolutely trying to steal code. Goldman high-frequency code isn't great...
You have written this in a weird way. I agree he was trying to steal code. The quality of what he stole is not relevant. The way you have written this, it could be read: "He tried to steal high-frequency code". This is very much debatable. I could easily argue that Log4J is part of Goldman's high-frequency code.
He did try to cover his tracks. What he did was wrong and he knew at the time it was wrong. Six years later, does the punishment fit the crime?
>He wasn't planning on selling it. He was planning on taking it to Teza
Yes. This is the interesting point. He wasn't planning on selling it because there is no market for it. By this, I mean that there is no place he could list the code for purchase because:
1. It would be illegal and other companies frown on that kind of thing (at least on paper).
2. The code would not be worth much without an understanding of what it does in the wider ecosystem.
Point two is key. Sergey understood the code. He was uploading it to help him remember the work he had done at Goldman's. There is very much a market for, "I did XYZ at Goldman's, I can do it for you too." I have no doubt that he would have been able to do it again without the source code, but he wanted his 'notes'.
GS didn't want him to apply his trade at another firm. Hence the 'vindictive employer' remark.
How long before another developer gets harassed by Goldman's because they printed off some technical documentation before leaving? What if the documentation is printed a month before leaving? ...a year? ...where is the line, exactly?