In a thousand ways. For example, if the guy showed that 24k is the ordinary price for the piece of software he claimed he wrote for the spoofer. Problem here is that a regular app would not cost 24k. Another way to show innocence is to show a whole roster of customers who all used the same identical software but for completely innocent and legal purposes. Then one could potentially go down the path of claiming the spoofer abused the software. There are a myriad of other ways to at least point to innocence. Yet none apply because this pos is guilty as fuck.
Sign the petition started by John Lothian: CFTC Should Drop Civil Charges and Apologize
- Thread starter wadewatts
- Start date
While you are right, the onus is on the government to prove guilt to take away my freedom.
The app as described in the complaint is 2 days of work. I would bill $24K for that. But that's me.
If i make guns, it's possible police can use them or criminals can use them. Unless I conspired with the person I sold the gun to commit a crime, then I am not guilty for making a gun.
So in this example, unless I am getting paid in profits on the software being used in a criminal matter, I am not guilty.
So in this example, unless I am getting paid in profits on the software being used in a criminal matter, I am not guilty.
That was exactly the DOJs contention; that the ISV coded "features" that allowed him to post size that his BP did not support. I stated I wasn't going to repeat myself. Off to Costco.
But the DOJ lost iiuc.
You make an interesting point. But from own experience it is very difficult to have a piece of software where you turn a few switches and the software transforms itself from a power generating nuclear reactor into a nuclear bomb. If that's possible then the software was deliberately designed to do so. Many questions easily lead to the right path: who is the intended user. How many users. What do the users generally do with it. Was the price, paid, fair and ordinary or does it point to any other features above and beyond the general use case? And every owner is responsible what software is being developed in-house
No you would not bill 24k for that. You would bill around 150 times 8 hours times 2. Of course assuming you are writing a simplified oms with data feed handler and execution hook and not an ill intended piece of software for which you can charge a premium because you know something other guys don't.
Last edited:
Not a correct conclusion.
The gun argument is a fallacy. Gun makers are generally protected because they are selling something that can be used for both good and evil. Let's turn this argument into what it actually is because the gun makers in your argument are third party vendors selling trading software and not contract software makers.
Some terrorist organization approaches Gun Makers Consultant Inc. and asks for them to make the best gun to kill lots of people quickly. GMC, Inc. obliges. The terrorist proceeds to use it for the purpose they intended, and now GMC, Inc is in legal trouble for supplying a firearm purpose built for criminal activity to a criminal who made it obvious they are a criminal. To bring this full circle, gun shops are always vigilant for criminals trying to buy guns because they are, in fact, liable for selling a gun to a criminal.
No gun company would stand up to this situation. Neither will any software company. He isn't selling "generic book cooking software", he's selling tailored made criminal tools to a criminal. Its the fact he, himself, sold the software to the person for the purpose of committing a crime that is the problem here. If it wasn't obvious enough to the software engineers - "I need to place and cancel orders very quickly in order to have an edge" should've been the time they call their lawyers and figure out what to do.
Thats a very poor comparison. The normal feature of a gun is to shoot and it is expected that guns kill. Ninja trading platform or multicharts is expected to normally handle pricing data and submit orders to a connected broker. The platforms can be abused but certainly was the platform never written to assist in any sort of abuse.
Now if we speak of guns that, for example, have a built in switch that can be turned and the gun converts into a fully automatic rifle then your comparison is fairer. But in this case the gun manufacturer should be held accountable that it deliberately designed a gun with illegal features in mind, it just concealed it intelligently
Now if we speak of guns that, for example, have a built in switch that can be turned and the gun converts into a fully automatic rifle then your comparison is fairer. But in this case the gun manufacturer should be held accountable that it deliberately designed a gun with illegal features in mind, it just concealed it intelligently