Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#31

Post by Yardlink »

HCIdivision17 wrote: post #26
ianstallings wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man somedays I am just so happy to work for startups. I get to choose my own title. My last one was lead guitar, but it ended up confusing people so I changed it to just "lead". My current one is "software guy". Edit: Oh sorry, I didn't know this was a serious topic, for serious discussion only. I'll just take my awesome title and go live it up, doing what the fuck I want. Have fun filling out your TPS reports.

I got a kick out of my first plant job. HR manager asked me what title my position was, I shrugged, "Process Engineer?" And thus became such. It's fascinating how titles can be both so important legally (i.e. In this article) or irrelevant (everyday life?)

I don't think titles are important legally. It's hard to believe his lawyer misunderstood that when it was apparently true according to the appeal judges. I know for instance, in copyright law, being an "employee" is important for deciding ownership, but you're not an employee just because you boss gives you that title, you have to be acting like one according to an odd set of rules.

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#32

Post by newaccountfool »

ianstallings wrote: post #14

Goddam the links on that article are annoying. None of them are sources, just links to general "topics" under bloomberg. Completely confusing. Read this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov That being said, this just shows how much power Goldman wields with the establishment and it was kind of a scary insight into their recorded weirdness. Basically they just said to the FBI that he stole the source…

One of the charges sounds completely ridiculous. "unlawful use of secret scientific material"

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#33

Post by wclax04 »

code_monkey_vp wrote: post #4

VP is common across the 'Murican banks. I am one, albeit in a different continent. VPs don't need to manage a team, but they do often shoulder some responsibility for a project, or maybe, even run the project. Usually, it is the level of pay that bumps them into the VP bracket. Not much else.

And American VPs are Executive Directors in the UK

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#34

Post by foobarqux »

rayiner wrote: post #10
Tosh108 wrote: post #9

Why are legal costs so ridiculously high in the states?

Because we have many rich people and corporations willing to spend a lot of money to make sure they don't lose their cases. According to Wikipedia, Aleynikov was making over $1m per year at a Goldman competitor after he left. And it looks like he got his money's worth. There was no dispute that he took the code. His "open source" defense apparently fell through, and a jury convicted him. He only won on appeal because…

I don't think Aleynikov started his job at his subsequent employer, they rescinded his offer after the Goldman allegations.

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#35

Post by [deleted] »

foobarqux wrote: post #34
rayiner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have many rich people and corporations willing to spend a lot of money to make sure they don't lose their cases. According to Wikipedia, Aleynikov was making over $1m per year at a Goldman competitor after he left. And it looks like he got his money's worth. There was no dispute that he took the code. His "open source" defense apparently fell through, and a jury convicted him. He only won on appeal because…

I don't think Aleynikov started his job at his subsequent employer, they rescinded his offer after the Goldman allegations.

[deleted]

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#36

Post by deciplex »

rayiner wrote: post #3

The Delaware law provisions in question exist because the officers and directors of a corporation are often sued for the alleged misconduct of the corporation itself, and it's reasonable in those circumstances for the corporation to pay for their defense. A VP at Goldman is, I think, the third lowest ranking front-office position. Not only is it not the sort of "officer" that Delaware law contemplates, but it's also…

>A VP at Goldman is, I think, the third lowest ranking front-office position.

So what? Let's just stick with the letter of the law, otherwise we're just choosing the letter or the spirit, whichever is more advantageous for the higher-status party. I have no doubt that, had he lost on a technicality rather than this bullshit, the inverse of your post would be the top comment instead (though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have the same author, I hope).

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#37

Post by sanderjd »

rayiner wrote: post #10
Tosh108 wrote: post #9

Why are legal costs so ridiculously high in the states?

Because we have many rich people and corporations willing to spend a lot of money to make sure they don't lose their cases. According to Wikipedia, Aleynikov was making over $1m per year at a Goldman competitor after he left. And it looks like he got his money's worth. There was no dispute that he took the code. His "open source" defense apparently fell through, and a jury convicted him. He only won on appeal because…

So then your parent's question degenerates to, why does spending more money correlate with winning more cases? Which is a much more interesting question.

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#38

Post by deciplex »

ianstallings wrote: post #19
jmsdnns wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how Bear Stearns was when I was there, 26, and a VP. The title is pegged to the salary, not responsibilities.

Serious question, does that make your job search harder when you leave to a place that doesn't hand out VP titles? People seem to be very particular about titles. Edit: Why did someone down vote me for asking a question? Don't be so goddam sensitive .

>Why did someone down vote me for asking a question? Don't be so goddam sensitive.

It's getting to the point now where people are downvoting on HN not just bad or off-topic posts, or posts they disagree with (which is already pretty close to ridiculous), but even just posts they don't think they themselves would have taken the time to write out. I'm pretty sure this post will be downvoted to a very light grey, for example.

It's gotten to the point where if I see a greyed-out post I just automatically give it an upvote. The environment around here has gotten so toxic that it is more often the case that such posts are better than average anyway.

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#39

Post by jamesaguilar »

deciplex wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #3

The Delaware law provisions in question exist because the officers and directors of a corporation are often sued for the alleged misconduct of the corporation itself, and it's reasonable in those circumstances for the corporation to pay for their defense. A VP at Goldman is, I think, the third lowest ranking front-office position. Not only is it not the sort of "officer" that Delaware law contemplates, but it's also…

>A VP at Goldman is, I think, the third lowest ranking front-office position. So what? Let's just stick with the letter of the law, otherwise we're just choosing the letter or the spirit, whichever is more advantageous for the higher-status party. I have no doubt that, had he lost on a technicality rather than this bullshit, the inverse of your post would be the top comment instead (though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't…

The letter of the law does not impinge on this question, since there is no law mapping bank employee designations to legally-defined officers of a bank.

Re: Sergey Aleynikov Loses in Goldman Fight Over Fees

#40

Post by deciplex »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #39
deciplex wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A VP at Goldman is, I think, the third lowest ranking front-office position. So what? Let's just stick with the letter of the law, otherwise we're just choosing the letter or the spirit, whichever is more advantageous for the higher-status party. I have no doubt that, had he lost on a technicality rather than this bullshit, the inverse of your post would be the top comment instead (though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't…

The letter of the law does not impinge on this question, since there is no law mapping bank employee designations to legally-defined officers of a bank.

Here's the law in question, for the record:

>Expenses (including attorneys’ fees) incurred by an officer or director of the corporation in defending any civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action, suit or proceeding may be paid by the corporation in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit or proceeding upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of such director or officer to repay such amount if it shall ultimately be determined that such person is not entitled to be indemnified by the corporation as authorized in this section. Such expenses (including attorneys’ fees) . . . may be so paid upon such terms and conditions, if any, as the corporation deems appropriate.

You'll notice that, unlike the article above (and a few other sources), there is nothing here about 'other employees' or agents of the company or whatever else. It is strictly officers and directors.

But, I'm surprised it's ambiguous that he's an officer. I don't work for Goldman, but I do work for a similarly large corporation in the same industry, and I can tell you there is no question that I'm an officer, at least according to the company bylaws, where I have to follow even the rules laid out specifically for officers. I assume it was the same for him, since he's in a similar position to myself (actually, a bit higher up, even).

Perhaps the bylaws at Goldman are just weirdly ambiguous and open to interpretation. Knowing what I know of management culture at Goldman Sachs, it would not surprise me in the slightest to learn they chose to keep them this way. However, if they are wording their bylaws in such a way, I see no reason for the court to give them the benefit of doubt in determining whether he's an officer.

I mean, taken at face value, all you're saying is that a company never has to follow this law, since they can always claim someone isn't an officer or director.

Post reply on HN