This is not a meaningful distinction in this case, as AFAIK it's about misappropriation of secrets rather than loss of property, so that isn't meant to be the same in the two presented scenarios.

Didn't the court rule that the secrets were not subject to protection under the law? It sounds an awful lot like the court ruled that no theft occurred, regardless of your definition.

Read Calabresi's opinion in the appeals court case overturning the conviction:

http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/sites/tsi.brooklaw.edu/files/filings...

The gist is: everyone agrees the conviction needs to be overturned by the letter of the law, and so it was, but that's because the law was silly, which is why it was immediately changed by unanimous consent in the Senate and a 388-4 vote in the House in a bill specifically mentioning Aleynikov.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/sen...

You should go back to reddit, my friend.