Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Secrets Leaked To China

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the like-coffee-to-south-america dept.

China 121

chicksdaddy writes with this excerpt from Threat Post: "A 10 year employee of CME Group in Chicago is alleged to have stolen trade secrets and proprietary source code used to run trading systems for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and passed them to officials in China, where he hoped to set up a software firm to help create electronic exchanges, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Illinois. Chunlai Yang, 49, is alleged to have downloaded "thousands of files" containing "source code and proprietary algorithms" used by CME to run its trading systems. The files were downloaded from a company-owned source code repository maintained by CME to Yang's work computer, then copied them to removable "thumb" drives. The complaint also cites personal e-mail correspondence between Yang and an official in China that contained proprietary CME information."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shades of an Earlier Era (3, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685524)

The United States was mighty competitive with Great Britain around the turn of the last century.

Same game, different faces.

Different faces? (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685564)

Huh? Different faces?

Re:Different faces? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685622)

Same game, different feces.

Re:Different faces? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685794)

From the summary:

The complaint...alleges that Chunlai Yang...

Wow, big fuckin' surprise there. Why do American corporations even hire Chinese people? You can take the Chinaman out of China but you can't take the China out of the Chinaman. Everybody knows that. Asians are all weird like that, with their funny loyalty blood-oaths and Crouching Tiger nonsense. Have you ever read The Art of War? Here's a passage from the fifth chapter:

You must strike fast, like the elements of water and earth. When you have the energy of the tree and the strength of the rat, your enemies will fall before you.

HaWha? Ha HA! What kind of fucking nonsensical mumbo-jumbo is that? Likely a result of inbreeding through the millenia because they keep throwing away all of their fresh females. Who would trust somebody from a barbaric culture like that? Not us, I hope.

Do your part. Don't hire Chinamen.

whitepages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686242)

"There is 1 person with the name "Chunlai Yang" in the United States."
http://names.whitepages.com/chunlai/yang

Re:Shades of an Earlier Era (2)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685790)

Nope. There was no official US Government policy to steal stuff from Britain. Although infraction of copyright and patents were ignored in the US (similar to what China is doing now).

Re:Shades of an Earlier Era (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686444)

But this stuff DOES still go on. No idea about what China's official policy is, but France hardly even hides an official policy of commercial espionage concerning the US. I know there will be nay-sayers [wikipedia.org] , but I'm not going to hunt references at work.

Re:Shades of an Earlier Era (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686534)

"Official"? What does that mean? Are you kidding me?

Don't mistake the governmental reflection of the power structure from the power structure itself.

Re:Shades of an Earlier Era (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686542)

This is not a troll, please mod up.

Re:Shades of an Earlier Era (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36688014)

50 cent party stretching hard to legitimize wrongdoing

As usual (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685544)

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                                              Version 3, 29 June 2007

  Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                                        Preamble

    The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

    For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.

    Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

    Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could
make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that
patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                                              TERMS AND CONDITIONS

    0. Definitions.

    "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

    "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

    "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

    To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

    A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

    To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

    To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

    An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

    1. Source Code.

    The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.

    A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
is widely used among developers working in that language.

    The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

    The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.

    The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding
Source.

    The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.

    2. Basic Permissions.

    All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

    You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

    Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.

    3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

    No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.

    When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.

    4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

    You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

    You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

    5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

    You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
        it, and giving a relevant date.

        b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
        released under this License and any conditions added under section
        7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
        "keep intact all notices".

        c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
        License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
        License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
        additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
        regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
        permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
        invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

        d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
        Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
        interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
        work need not make them do so.

    A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.

    6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

    You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:

        a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
        Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
        customarily used for software interchange.

        b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
        written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
        long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
        model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
        copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
        product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
        medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
        more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
        conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
        Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

        c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
        written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
        alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
        only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
        with subsection 6b.

        d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
        place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
        Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
        further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
        Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
        copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
        may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
        that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
        clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
        Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
        Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
        available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

        e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
        you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
        Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
        charge under subsection 6d.

    A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.

    A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product.

    "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.

    If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).

    The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.

    Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
source code form), and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.

    7. Additional Terms.

    "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.

    When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

        a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
        terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or

        b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
        author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
        Notices displayed by works containing it; or

        c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
        requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
        reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

        d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
        authors of the material; or

        e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
        trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

        f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
        material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
        it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
        any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
        those licensors and authors.

    All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.

    If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.

    Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way.

    8. Termination.

    You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 11).

    However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.

    Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

    Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 10.

    9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

    10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

    An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

    You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

    11. Patents.

    A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".

    A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

    Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

    In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement). To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.

    If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have
actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
country that you have reason to believe are valid.

    If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

    A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

    Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

    12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

    If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

    13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such.

    14. Revised Versions of this License.

    The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

    If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

    Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

    15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

    THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    16. Limitation of Liability.

    IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.

    17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

    If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.

                                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                        How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
        Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

        This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

    If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

        <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
        This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands
might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".

    You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

    The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.

Re:As usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685814)

Thanks for the text wall asshat.....

BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (2, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685648)

so if you're gonna rant about H-1B visas, don't bother.

I suppose you can rant about legal immigration in general, if you want.

I thought this would be a fine example of the problems with H1-B workers, but the phrase "49-year-old Chunlai Yang, who is a naturalised US citizen," kept coming up in news articles about the arrest, so I had to give it up.

Re:BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685692)

This is why being a natural born citizen is so important. Those who think the "birther" issue is silly should take note.

Re:BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685746)

Lame troll is lame.

Natural born citizens sell out to foreign countries all the time. Greed is not based on nationality or place of birth.

Re:BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686786)

But nationalism and sometimes racism is.

The fact you have trouble relating to it says wonders about your culture of origin while at the same time, speaks extremely poorly of you in relation to you culture and the greater world around you.

To put it nicely, you referring to the parent post as a troll, is itself a farce and a trollish position to take.

Re:BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36687090)

The parent is trolling, else he would not have brought up the birther crap.

Over here in reality, people sellout their own nations all the time for money. It happened in the cold war, and for eons before.

Nationalism and racism are for people who have nothing to be personally proud about.

Re:BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#36688208)

Nationalism and racism are for people who have nothing to be personally proud about.

Eep. Apt observation, but rather frightening, when you think about how many people don't have anything to be personally proud about.

Fortunately for me, I'm personally proud having constructed this grammatically correct English sentence, so I'm cool.

DOH!

Re:BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (4, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685752)

During the Cold War, many Soviet illegal agents (ie, lacking diplomatic cover; not "illegal immigrants") became naturalized US citizens. It is easier for a US citizen to get close to sensitive data, so its par for the course. If the KGB did it, you can bet the MSS is doing it, too. That's not to say he's a plant of the PRC, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. Just saying.

Re:BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685802)

so if you're gonna rant about H-1B visas, don't bother.

Why? He may be a citizen now but have originally entered the US and established legal residency under an H1-B visa.

Naturalized US Citizen, Born in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685866)

Big Chinese Kudos

Re:BTW, The Suspect is a US Citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36689146)

hey, hib's are scab labor, end of story.

He must be guilty! (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685684)

Because he's Chinese, in light of our MacArthur-style political climate.

The evidence against him includes screen captures showing Yang in the act of copying source code files to removable drives from his laptop.

Sounds like another Wen Ho Lee [wikipedia.org] .

Re:He must be guilty! (5, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685780)

Douglas MacArthur has nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy. If you are going to complain, at least complain about the right thing.

Re:He must be guilty! (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685858)

Oh, yeah? Where was your precious McCarthy when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Re:He must be guilty! (2)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685962)

Sitting on Edgar Bergen's knee.

Re:He must be guilty! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36687070)

Oh, yeah? Where was your precious McCarthy when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Otter: Germans?

Boon: Forget it...he's rolling....

Re:He must be guilty! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36689050)

Oh, yeah? Where was your precious McCarthy when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

You mean when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. After the US cut off their oil supply by putting an embargo on them? Who could have guessed they would retaliate. ;)
Probably the central bankers who wanted to get the US into the war.

Re:He must be guilty! (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685914)

Yeah... sorry, trying to beat crowd in posting. Got names mixed up. But you get the idea.

Re:He must be guilty! (2)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686794)

You know, I've spent years thinking that they were actually the same person. Once again, /. has taught me my one thing for today.

Re:He must be guilty! (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686886)

Yeah keep it straight. MacArthur was the one who demanded that Truman authorize multiple atomic bombing missions in China during the Korean War; MacCarthy was the one who exposed a Russian soviet spy.

The rabid anti-Chinese/anti-communist pose in American politics is owned by no man, it is decades old, spans generations and represents the finest in American consensus. Horrible, horrible consensus.

Re:He must be guilty! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36689486)

Both republicans and both hated communists. One wanted to nuke them all while the other wanted to root them all.

McCarthy-style (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685944)

Fix typo. trying to beat crowd in posting. Got names mixed up. But you get the idea.

Re:McCarthy-style (1, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686792)

But with hindsight McCarthy seems to have _under_estimated the USSR's penetration of the US government. He may have been crazy, but it would seem that he wasn't paranoid enough.

Algorithms for what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685686)

How complicated is an exchange anyway? It's just a FIFO order matching system. Maybe some code to handle the legal side of things (records and such) and situations where trading needs to be halted (eg. flash crash) but other than that I can't see anything special.

What's the deal? What is there to steal?

Re:Algorithms for what? (1)

timster (32400) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686084)

It's a little more complicated than that... CME has a discussion of their match algorithms on pages 42 through 52 of their electronic trading documentation:

http://www.cmegroup.com/globex/files/ElectronicTradingConcepts.pdf [cmegroup.com]

Not that it's necessarily that much harder in principle to implement 10 relatively-simple algorithms, but when you add requirements for performance/latency into the mix it doesn't seem that surprising that there would be some trade secrets in there somewhere.

US Govt Passes Secrets Too! Deliberately (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685702)

Yup, this is marginally off topic, I admit, but it illustrates private corporation software going to foreign government entitites.

During the Clinton years the Secretary of Commerce forced some companies to sell software to Libya (known for software piracy) for proprietary oil operations (I can't say what) under the threat of federal prosecution if they did not do so.

This amounts to forced transfer of proprietary software, though not including original source code.

I do not think people realize what political deals behind the scenes do to US company's proprietary property when the US government decides to do "Let's make a deal" with foreign dictators that can't be trusted.

Re:US Govt Passes Secrets Too! Deliberately (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685762)

The Nixon Doctrine: It's not illegal if the President does it, or orders it done.

Re:US Govt Passes Secrets Too! Deliberately (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685936)

During the Clinton years the Secretary of Commerce forced some companies to sell software to Libya...

No linky? That sounds like an interesting story.. I mean, it's true that boycotting Israel is illegal [doc.gov] , but this one I never heard

Re:US Govt Passes Secrets Too! Deliberately (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36689426)

I'm not authorized to name names, but the software was essential to the refining of oil into finished products. Anyone in the industry can guess which of a couple companies that might be.

I can tell you that the firm that had to "turn over" the software, made sure that the code didn't have all the trade secrets in it.

The damnable government highjinks are actually undermining our country's companies, which means our jobs. It is our jobs that get lost when these "giveaways" occur because some political deal happens.

It is true marxist sickness, where the government tells companies to screw themselves and the company has to say back "Fine, now where do you want me to put the screw into myself and how deep?" Kill the Golden Goose and...you kill the employees.

Re:US Govt Passes Secrets Too! Deliberately (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36689452)

Oh, and guess what then happened to the software that went to Libya?

Programmers who rely on income from their customers will expect this.

Suddenly the company who had to "give" the software to Libya started to get calls for software support from all sorts of places through the Mid-East and elsewhere in the world.

So much honesty and trust in the MidEast. Why it must absolutely be nirvana.

Boo-hoo! (-1, Offtopic)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685724)

Why do I find it so difficult to feel sorry for the Wall Street gamblers who got their precious "intellectual property" stolen?

BTW, speaking of Wall St. gamblers... there's a new bill in Congress to reinstate the Glass-Steagall "wall of separation" between investment and commercial banking. Contact your reps to get them on board.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184237 [market-ticker.org]

Re:Boo-hoo! (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685824)

obPedant: It's Wacker Drive [chicagoarchitecture.info] , not Wall Street. Completely different city, too.

Re:Boo-hoo! (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685874)

Yeah, you're right, that's completely different. Fat-cat commodities gamblers in Chicago are nothing at all like the ones in NYC.

Re:Boo-hoo! (0, Offtopic)

footNipple (541325) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686744)

Hello taiwanjohn, nice to meet you. I'm a "Fat-cat commodities gambler" here in Chicago. Have been in the business for over 20 years along with writing proprietary software for other "fat-cats" and "fat-cat firms" for even longer. I too pay taxes (a very large amount) and spend money in our economy just like you. So what industry and line of work are you in?

Re:Boo-hoo! (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685918)

Also, the software was taken from the Exchange, not the investors. Investors pay to have their trades made through the Exchange. The Exchange just facilitates the transaction. CME is more like the casino, not the gamblers.

Economic Warfare (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685730)

This is obviously an attempt by the US to sabotage the Chinese economy by getting them to engage in the same kind of economic masturbation that the US does. Do we really want Chinese physicists working on new technologies when ours are at the stock exchanges? If they do that they clean our clocks and completely dominate us.

Re:Economic Warfare (2)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685818)

LOL! So that's what that "stux.zh.cn.jpg" file was all about... ;-)

Re:Economic Warfare (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685848)

What, you think the Chinese are going to screw with their economy? They know the ins and outs of an American stock exchange ... they can now screw with the US economy. Admittedly, it may be hard to spot though.

Oh Noes! (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685734)

Not the ...


if( traderID.isInsider() )
trade.execute();
else
tradeDelayQueue.push(trade);

... code snippet!

Chinese employees cannot be trusted with secrets (0)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685742)

It's been proven time and time again, they will steal and send to china internal documents, critical data and other secrets.

Re:Chinese employees cannot be trusted with secret (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685792)

That's the understatement of the decade.

98 28 48 3338 - AK

Re:Chinese employees cannot be trusted with secret (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685952)

Is that so much worse than the US using the CIA and NSA to wiretap and bug foreign companies to steal trade secrets [europa.eu] for US companies? (search for "Published cases")

Thousand Grains of Sand (5, Interesting)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685764)

The Chinese Government has a policy known as the 'Thousand Grains of Sand' where each citizen is encouraged to bring back a little something from overseas if they can. Then one of the hundreds of thousands of state officials implementing this policy will see what the person brought back and dole out any appropriate reward. This is why Chinese citizens (and some Chinese descended citizens who return to the motherland) are being caught all over the World doing this sort of stuff (eg. in New Zealand Chinese regularly get caught stealing agricultural samples that our higher-value export industries are based on). While anyone can be a criminal, I can't think of any other country in the modern age where this is officially sanctioned.

China wants to be number one in the World, and perhaps they will get there, but it seems an awful shame they're so determined to do so that they are quite unethical (from the majority of the rest of the World's point of view). This is not meant to be a bashing of China, or of Chinese citizens, just an explanation of why these events are becoming more frequent for those unaware of the official Chinese Government policy that encourages behavour considered criminal elsewhere. The Chinese Government will smile at you while robbing your house behind your back (although this is nothing compared to how they treat their own citizens).

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685868)

But remember, we have to keep low trade tarifs and encourage off shore contracting because of "Globalization". Funny thing is we seem to be the only one doing this. Its like the saying, "what if we had a war and only one side showed up?".

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685930)

You mean like kiwis or kiwifruit historically known as chinese gooseberries

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685932)

New Zealand Chinese regularly get caught stealing agricultural samples that our higher-value export industries are based on

None other than founding father Thomas Jefferson engaged in this sort of agricultural espionage (smuggling two bags or unhulled rice out of Italy, a crime punishable by death at the time), so its hardly new or damning to the Chinese.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36685964)

The Chinese learned the lessons of history well. Stealing industrial secrets from China was a favourite of Europeans:

"Similar to other European travellers of the period, such as Walter Medhurst, Fortune disguised himself as a Chinese merchant during several, but not all, of his journeys beyond the newly established treaty port areas. Not only was Fortune's purchase of tea plants forbidden by the Chinese government of the time, but his travels were also beyond the allowable day's journey from the European treaty ports."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fortune

We'll see if the Chinese stoop as low as the Europeans and Americans did during the Opium War, where they forced the Chinese to buy drugs from them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686098)

The Chinese Government has a policy known as the 'Thousand Grains of Sand' where each citizen is encouraged to bring back a little something from overseas if they can.

A google search for "Thousand Grains of Sand" shows this and some blogs that link back to this: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2005/2005721212041.asp

It's a completely unsourced article written by some guy who designs wargames and, as far as I can tell, has an undergraduate degree in history from Columbia. There's enough FUD around the internet about China without spreading something which is, well, indistinguishable from a total fabrication. The CPC is certainly a very unpleasant bunch; we probably have enough material without resorting to random internet conspiracies and without making suspect the millions of overseas Chinese.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (0)

wiggles (30088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686138)

Remember: Before there was Machiavelli, there was Sun Tze.

The Chinese have been at this far longer than those of us in the West.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (5, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686398)

Oh, please. I have no love for the Chinese government, but even I know that this is in no way unique to them.

For as long as there has been property, there have been thieves. The U.S. stole much of its industrial-revolution era technology from the U.K. Europe stole many of the ideas that brought about the renaissance from the Arabs. The Arabs stole much of this engineering knowledge from the Byzantine Romans. They in turn stole from anyone they could lay their blood covered hands on. That's how it works. How can people on Slashdot bitch about software patents, and then complain about Chinese theft of software?

They're ideas, goddamnit. They spread. That's why they're beautiful.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686704)

Well said, wish I have mod points.

How can people on Slashdot bitch about software patents, and then complain about Chinese theft of software?

That's known as double standard mixed with scapegoating.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686928)

Well said, wish I have mod points.

How can people on Slashdot bitch about software patents, and then complain about Chinese theft of software?

That's known as double standard mixed with scapegoating.

Only if you don't know the difference between software patents and stealing a company's internal software and giving it to their competitors. They're such different concepts that I can hardly see how anyone could confuse the two.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 3 years ago | (#36687230)

Yes, there is a difference: robbery vs steal.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36687892)

Well, no, I see the difference. I was merely pointing out that if you can steal source code, then it is someone's property. If source code can be someone's property, then software patents do indeed have some merit. I mean, let's say some company had an amazing algorithm, and someone left the company, went to China, and created an imitation of it. The only recourse then would be to claim that they stole a "patented idea"...

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686988)

It's fine for the idea itself to spread, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to STEAL the work of someone else...

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36687810)

So you're saying that downloading of anything copyrighted shouldn't be allowed then? Or are you really just saying that you should be allowed to define what property is?

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36689244)

Fun trivia:Thomas Jefferson purchased a far superior strain of hemp seed from an Indian man who had smuggled them out of China despite an Imperial ban on their export. The Chinese knew their hemp was among the best in the world and were trying to keep foreign competition from getting their hands on it.

  (No, I don't know if this strain would get you high or just give you raging headache if you smoked it, but I'd bet it was the latter.)

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686324)

In its early days, the US didn't respect copyright and printers copied popular British authors wholesale.

This whole thing is kind of like terrorism. If your the weak party, fighting with terrorist/guerrilla type tactics makes full sense, otherwise you will be wiped out by facing the enemy head-on and openly/"honorably". If you're the strong party, it makes sense to be willing to face anyone head on and officially frown down upon who doesn't. Even though "all is fair in love and war" and "war is hell". Any rules outside that probably benefits the originating source trumpeting it.

China's strength is the size of their population. The "thousand grains of sand" makes sense for them. I can point to a thousand underhanded US moves over the last century, of them strong-arming the weak, taking advantage of the other party when they could, or plain stealing what they needed to through force/deceit. Often, the US has grown lazy and simply and clumsily plays the bully in the world, which arouses bad feelings. Needless to say, their version of ethics are rules they make up for their own benefit.

Want an example? Here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

Anyway, yeah, the Chinese have become a problem. Frankly, it's one the US built up, starting with Nixon. You guys already had a trade deficit with them starting 1985. It's a bit late to complain about their game, when the US has been exploiting their cheap labor and lack of environmental regulations all this time.

One businessman I know and respect, who is a (major) bit of a conman himself, was astounded how crooked some of the Chinese are. But it's how they operated for 1000s of years. It's nothing new, except instead of just preying on their own population, the rest of the world will get a taste of it too.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686592)

It might look evil from our p.o.v.... and indeed, is it evil, if it hurts us (which is impossible for software, since software is not a physical object, and isn't "stolenâ is the sense of us losing anything.),

but it's not a bad strategy to improve the own country.

I wish everybody in my country would think about actively improving the own country, and taking pride in it, instead of just sitting in front of the TV, consuming stuff he can't pay for, and (for some countries, not for mine, as here, people are ashamed of their country) rambling about how awesome his country is.

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (1)

kenrblan (1388237) | more than 3 years ago | (#36687316)

Don't worry. The US has a corporate counter-strategy that could be known as the "Billion Clogged Arteries." The overt health destruction agency known as KFC is having a very successful deployment in China.
Deep Fried Success [bloomberg.com]

Re:Thousand Grains of Sand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36687672)

Morals have nothing to do with it. This is why the Chinese Communist party will FAIL, just like all other crooks ultimately will.

Live by the sword, die by the sword..

China vs. the USSR (2)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685828)

In the past the USSR would steal all the technology it could mostly because they lacked the money to develop their own and the Cold War denied them a good way to develop their own stuff, so they just stole it when they could due to lack of alternatives. The Chinese are flush with cash but they are just lazy. It's much quicker to steal something than to develop it yourself, even when you've got the means to do so. An entire generation of Chinese people are being put to work in their system looking for shortcuts like this. You can steal a fish today from the guy next to you who knows how to fish and thereby feed yourself, but what happens tomorrow when he doesn't come to the river and you don't know how to catch fish yourself?

Re:China vs. the USSR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686012)

IP isn't a consumable resource

Re:China vs. the USSR (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686176)

You sit around for 2000 years not advancing and waiting for the next fisherman to show up.

Tell me... (1)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685902)

Why don't we just summarily shoot these people for espionage? Or do they get a free pass because they're from big, bad, scary China?

There's a very simple way to deal with China's aggressive, abusive 'Thousand Grains of Salt' campaign: brutally crack down on Chinese spies, and deal with perpetrators mercilessly.

Re:Tell me... (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686420)

That's exactly what they did less than a century ago. Not very progressive, are we?

send him to a federal pound me in the ass prison! (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685972)

send him to a federal pound me in the ass prison!

Re:send him to a federal pound me in the ass priso (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686556)

Why? He's not a pedophile.

You know why America is screwed? (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36685988)

Because the average American cannot believe their lying eyes that China is now starting to go around the world much like the British Empire in advancing its own interests, building its power, subverting local governments and even yes colonizing (how many Americans know that China is exporting surplus population to Africa to help it acquire resources). Stupid Americans make comments about how we can't rush to judgment that Chinese might be more dangerous than other ethnic groups to hire for sensitive positions, despite the fact that it's public knowledge that their government aggressively engages in and encourages industrial espionage. They have a crowdsourcing program for intelligence (of all types) gathering, for fuck's sake.

But oh no, it's just those evil right-wing extremists and union workers who think China is a serious threat to our people and way of life. Everyone knows they're just a large asian version of Mexico.

Re:You know why America is screwed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36689042)

America should just unscrew itself. PRC, you wanted that code, you got it, no warranty. The final, un-refundable price happens to be equal to the cumulative trade deficit with the PRC for the last 2 decades. Oh don't bother writing a check, we'll just call it even.

Nice title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686010)

The summary says "alleged" and yet the title says differently. Enough with the sensationalism.

Translation.... (1)

hackus (159037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686332)

You stole our code which rigged the markets so a few can benefit.

How dare you!

Hackus

What is so secret about exhanges and trade? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686384)

Buying: I give you money, you give me property.
Selling: You give me money, I give you property.

For an exchange, repeat many times a day for lots of people.

If there is anything more complicated, I want to know about it.

Re:What is so secret about exhanges and trade? (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686732)

Joanna: "Hey, what were you guys celebrating last night?"
Peter: "Oh, uh, I'm not really at liberty to talk about it. (She looks at him) I really can't. (Still looking) Alright, so when the sub routine compounds the interest, right, it uses all these extra decimal places that get rounded off. So we simplified the whole thing and we just-- we round 'em all down and drop the remainder into an account that we opened."
Joanna: "So, you're stealing."
Peter: "Uh, no. No, you don't understand. It's uh-- it's very complicated. It's uh-- it's aggregate, so I'm talking about fractions of a penny here. And, uh, over time they add up to a lot."
Joanna: "Oh, okay. So, you're gonna make a lot of money, right?"
Peter: "Yeah."
Joanna: "Right? That's not yours?"
Peter: "Uh, well, it becomes ours."
Joanna: "How is that not stealing?"

Re:What is so secret about exhanges and trade? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36688120)

Richard Pryor [wikipedia.org] did it better.

I don't want to go to jail because there are robbers and rapers and rapers who rape robbers!

oh, wait, maybe not...

Did this happen because he was fired? (2)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686494)

I know a number of highly skilled people who have lost their jobs in recent years. Some due to office politics, but mostly it was a combination of downsizing and outsourcing. These folks had some serious knowledge. Management should have considered the consequences of sending these people out the door in search of employment. Let's just say I have seen some spectacular malfunctions of management strategy that I dare not mention in a public forum. Relying on a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement is not much protection when the ultimate sanction (loss of job) is already off the table. If the ex-employee goes to China, good luck with that non-compete agreement.

IT culture has deteriorated to the point where most employees have a "doomsday" thumb drive with all kinds of information that might be helpful at their next job. With nearly 20% of the work force effectively unemployed and the other 80% paranoid about their future, confidentiality is going to be a scarce commodity.

At the upper levels of management, there are golden parachutes for a terminated CEO, CFO, CIO, etc. In return for enough cash to sit back and carefully choose their next job, the quid pro quo is that secrets remain secret. At that level, the problem is acknowledged and solved with money. But there are a lot of secrets at all levels of management these days, and employers seem to be surprised when things leak.

Re:Did this happen because he was fired? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36688650)

Nope. He was fired the day the Feds arrested him.

From http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/07/02/idINIndia-58048420110702 :
"Yang had made reservations for a one-way flight to China, due to leave Chicago on July 7, and had asked for corresponding vacation time from his job, the FBI affidavit said."

Re:Did this happen because he was fired? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36689698)

They arrested him at the office, so no it did not happen because he was fired. He was arrested first and then fired.

Who fucking care if source code is steal? (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686622)

You can write it again.... ooops.. you don't need to write it again. Is unfair, but is like stealing some customized pants that only work for you. It will be a disavengate to try to use these pants.

Re:Who fucking care if source code is steal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686826)

Don't take this the wrong way... Just asking because your grammar is kind of... Are you Chinese by chance?
 
  p.s. If I can't use these pants, can I borrow yours then?

Scare quotes around "thumb" drives? (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36686750)

Come on, I thought this was News for Nerds.

Re:Scare quotes around "thumb" drives? (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36687104)

And why do we insist on calling them "thumb drives"? Is the correct term "USB flash drive" THAT onerous?

Re:Scare quotes around "thumb" drives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36688154)

You should feel releave that they didn't call it "finger" lol.

this ain't exactly stealth fighter blueprints here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36686846)

C'mon, stock exchange software?
The outcry should only be if there are secrets here the stock exchange don't want you to see.
Why isn't the system processing YOUR money open sourced?

Geez (1)

glittermage (650813) | more than 3 years ago | (#36687640)

Dumb ones are caught...

let them copy our trading system. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36688904)

It is the last non-lethal weapon we have left against them. It was and is very effective in destroying our own economy.

If they have the code, they can game the system (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36689228)

If you have access to the algorithms that manage how trades are done, you can potentially manipulate trades to make illegal profit.

1. Steal code

2. Write trading code that cheats the system

3. Profit

Typical Slashdot joke. Except we know what step two is, and a foreign government may be both directly and indirectly supporting the manipulation. The real world isn't quite so funny;.

Relevant ads (1)

Alimony Pakhdan (1855364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36689246)

Anyone else getting lots of Confucius Institute ads lately?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>