Windows Source Code Seller Arrested

prostoalex writes "New York Times says William O. Genovese Jr., 27, of Meriden, Conn. has been arrested by the Feds for selling source code for Windows NT and Windows 2000 operating systems. It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling the portion of the code that was leaked earlier this year or if he had access to other portions of Windows source code. The timing, though, coincides, as the code leaked in February, the same month NYT claims the entrepreneur obtained the source code."

Re:Disgusting

[Anita Coney]

Despite what people think, there is no right to privacy or "personal integrity" in the US Constitution. Maybe there should be, but as now there isn't.

Re:Who can really gain from this code though?

[Scoria]

Any malware developer could probably derive a benefit. They are unscrupulous, and it is usually more trivial to examine uncompiled software for vulnerabilities.

Here's his website ...

[Draoi]

illmob.org [illmog.org]

Interesting stuff ... shopping at Ikea the day before his arrest, oblivious to the impending doom.

Re:Disgusting

[ZB Mowrey]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...{snip}

This is generally construed... and has been promulgated by SCOTUS... as a right to privacy.

Re:Who can really gain from this code though?

[gilesjuk]

Well under current laws this wouldn't be allowed. You have to view the code, write down the basic specs on paper and then get someone else to write the code, or "Clean room design" as it's commonly known as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design [wikipedia.org]

trade secret != copyright

[mangu]

Microsoft's source code is copyrighted, ... Moreover, the source code is a trade secret of Microsoft.

OK, make up your mind, which is it, a trade secret or a copyright? Because copyrighted works are intended to, eventually, become public domain, one cannot copyright a trade secret. Or, at least, that's more or less how it's written in the U.S. Constitution.

Re:Who can really gain from this code though?

[jimicus]

And as soon as the contents of your hard disk are examined under subpoena, you're screwed. As is the project you worked on. And it's not exactly great for the wider PR for Open Source in general.

I would consider doing this foolish at best, downright dangerous at worst.

Re:Disgusting

[Lord_Slepnir]

It's covered in the 9th amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Disgusting

[NotoriousQ]

Publishing someone's name is not an unreasonable search and seizure of a person or his effects.

What the amendment says is that it takes a warrant or probable cause to do a body search. This also means that airport security can not conduct random searches, because AFAIK that is not a good enough reason. So next time you are searched in the airport, just show them this article. They "must" let you go, but will probably not let you board (their prerogative).

Unfortunately, I believe it is currently illegal to refuse a search and walk out of the airport. I guess this is something I will test the next time I will do leisure travel. I hope someone has bail for me.

Wishful thinking

[grouse]

You can copyright a trade secret. You can't patent a trade secret, because patenting something necessarily means it is published, and therefore no longer secret.

Re:Disgusting

[Bas_Wijnen]

our system is about "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", not "they are pretty sure"

Well shit, we better tell the police to stop arresting people unless they catch them in the act. How else are they supposed to know if someone's 100% guilty or not?

The police is allowed to arrest suspects. That has nothing to do with it. Your grantparent said:

But if they released his full name you can bet they are pretty sure about this one.

which implies that there is a difference between suspects depending on how sure you are. The judicial system leaves that consideration to the court, so the press shouldn't make it.

Here (in the Netherlands), the police will not tell family names to the press at all. People who need it can check for a criminal record, and others have no business knowing anything about it. And of course, you don't have a criminal record if you're only suspected.