* the names are misspelled: first person is Sergey Aleynikov (not alinikov) and second person is Samarth Agarwal (not agrawal)
* in each circumstance, there was actual trade secret theft. That part is clear. The slide itself seems to suggest something beyond that, but they essentially took code that they wrote for their employer (and they signed contracts clearly saying that it belongs to the employers)
The point of that slide is that trade secret theft is a very old problem, and that there is a long history of criminal and civil case law to look to when punishing that kind of action. Those individuals were all charged under the Economic Espionage Act and face extreme penalties. I see this as another version of overcharging under the CFAA; the Federal Government has one standard for doing something on paper and a much harsher one for the same activities while using an SVN repo.
I am not defending the actions of those men, I just feel that the civil remedies that have been used for decades are more appropriate than having the soul-destroying power of the US DOJ turned against them on behalf of their employers.
The ethical dilemma exists for the technologist who performs the investigation and testifies against her former co-worker. What responsibility does she have to see justice done? I don't have an answer, but that was the question posed by the slides on justice.
* the names are misspelled: first person is Sergey Aleynikov (not alinikov) and second person is Samarth Agarwal (not agrawal)
* in each circumstance, there was actual trade secret theft. That part is clear. The slide itself seems to suggest something beyond that, but they essentially took code that they wrote for their employer (and they signed contracts clearly saying that it belongs to the employers)