The issue in this case wasnt over whether Aleynikov did something wrong (he even admitted as much). The issue is over how he should be punished. Goldman should be upset, but that doesnt necessarily mean he deserves the degree of punishment that the Economic Espionage Act entails.
Eh, no, that's not what the issue is about. The article states explicitly that no reason for the reversal was given (yet), but it seems to be about the extent of 'interstate commerce'. I.e., a purely technical legal point, having nothing to do with the material matters in the case.
But they are related. If the conviction was upheld, he could be punished criminally with jail time. With the conviction overturned, Goldman can still go after him civilly for breach of contract which is relatively similar to a fine.
"Relatively similar"? No it's not. Criminal conviction or not, GS could still sue, albeit that the proof would be easier. Either way, I don't understand the relationship between your post and mine, or the whole point that is being made here.
Punitive damages maybe, plus maybe contractual obligations on damages in case of breach. If they didn't use it, and if a civil case was purely based on damage caused (two big ifs), I don't think there would be much of a (civil) case, no, because there needs to be causality between the breach and the damages, which then there wouldn't be.
