Now <i>that</i> is an interesting monkey in the wrench. A 2nd Circuit opinion that allows that<p><i>"He (the defendant) argues that:<p>[1] the source code was not a “stolen” “good”
within the meaning of the NSPA, and<p>[2] the source code was
not “related to or included in a product that is produced
for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce” within the
meaning of the EEA.<p>The judgement of the district court is
reversed."</i><p>Which narrows the opinion to the definitions in the NSPA and EEA but I think some creative lawyering should be able to get this into things like code to compress images for example.<p>It will be interesting to see if anyone can use this as leverage in the ongoing copyright/patent/IP discussion.
It would be lovely to read an IP lawyer's opinion on this story's implications.<p>Does this mean that a programmer working at a firm can walk away with code without breaking any laws?