jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) (05/26/91)
In article <1991May24.190632.28098@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes: >FN1. Riggs pleaded guilty to a second count of the Illinois indictment, >charging interstate transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. 2314, >but the government moved to dismiss the plea as to this count after it was >revealed that the property was valued at under $5,000, the statutory >minimum. The government did not make a similar motion as to the wire >fraud count because 18 U.S.C. 1343 has no minimum dollar threshold. See >Sentencing Information Filed on Behalf of the Northern District of >Illinois United States Attorney's Office, submitted with the Government's >Sentencing Memorandum and S.G. 5K1.1 Motion. R1-50-1-2 and 7-8. Does this mean that the U.S. courts consider information to be property ? Does this case set a precedent ? //Jyrki
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (05/27/91)
In article <1991May26.123647.1059@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes: > >Does this mean that the U.S. courts consider information to be >property ? Does this case set a precedent ? This case does not set a precedent in that regard. The law on whether information is property is complicated, but information is not property for the purposes of the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property statute, in general. The Supreme Court decided this issue in a case called Dowling v. United States in 1985. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this general rule--these exceptions have to do mainly with cases in which the information was embodied in some tangible form when it was taken across state lines. In general, what we call "intellectual property" is not dealt with under the general theft statutes, but is protected by specific provisions of the Copyright and Patent statutes. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, | To see a world in a grain of sand mnemonic@eff.org | And heaven in a wild flower (617) 864-0665 | Hold infinity in the palm of your hand EFF, Cambridge, MA | And eternity in an hour
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (05/27/91)
In article <1991May26.185915.21605@eff.org> Mike Godwin writes: >In general, what we call "intellectual property" is not dealt with >under the general theft statutes, but is protected by specific >provisions of the Copyright and Patent statutes. One notable current exception seems to be trhe Len Rose case. Bill Vajk
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (05/27/91)
In article <1991May27.065841.6280@ddsw1.MCS.COM> learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes: >In article <1991May26.185915.21605@eff.org> Mike Godwin writes: > >>In general, what we call "intellectual property" is not dealt with >>under the general theft statutes, but is protected by specific >>provisions of the Copyright and Patent statutes. > >One notable current exception seems to be trhe Len Rose case. It is worth noting that Len pled guilty to wire fraud. Unlike the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property statute, wire fraud does not actually require a theft of tangible property. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, | To see a world in a grain of sand mnemonic@eff.org | And heaven in a wild flower (617) 864-0665 | Hold infinity in the palm of your hand EFF, Cambridge, MA | And eternity in an hour
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May27.131121.3589@eff.org> Mike Godwin writes: >It is worth noting that Len pled guilty to wire fraud. Unlike >the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property statute, wire >fraud does not actually require a theft of tangible property. Thanks, Mike. Bears changing though. Strange, isn't it, that wire fraud wasn't one of the charges as of August 1990 (for which see special edition TELECOM DIGEST dated 11 August 1990.) The charges quite specifically, unless they are misquoted, two counts of "traffic in information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization and three counts of interstate transfer of goods valued in excess of $ 5000. Tellya, if I were Breckinridge L. Wilcox (foreman of the Grand Jury which handed down the indictments) I'd be real angry. Bill Vajk
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May28.025025.27818@ddsw1.MCS.COM> learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) writes: > >Strange, isn't it, that wire fraud wasn't one of the charges as of >August 1990 (for which see special edition TELECOM DIGEST dated >11 August 1990.) The charges quite specifically, unless they are >misquoted, two counts of "traffic in information through which >a computer may be accessed without authorization and three counts >of interstate transfer of goods valued in excess of $ 5000. I think it's fair to say that the reason the superseding indictment included wire fraud is that the prosecutors realized they couldn't establish the elements of ITSP if no tangible property had been stolen. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, | To see a world in a grain of sand mnemonic@eff.org | And heaven in a wild flower (617) 864-0665 | Hold infinity in the palm of your hand EFF, Cambridge, MA | And eternity in an hour