Federal law and the interstate transfer of stolen computer data: riggs and brown

Abstract

On February 21, 1991, the Tenth Circuit decided United States v Brown 925 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1991) 1 and held that computer source code is intangible property which is not subject to prosecution under Title 18, USC Section 2314, the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA). However, seven months earlier Judge Nicholas Bua of the United States District Court in Chicago, in United States v Riggs, 739 F.Supp. 414 (N.D. II. 1990), reached a contrary result in finding that the NSPA reached the interstate transportation of a computerized text file and that the text file met the “goods, wares, [or] merchandise” requirement of 18 USC 2314. In this article William Cook suggests that the Tenth Circuit incorrectly concluded, in the Brown case, that the interstate transportation of computer source code stored on paper and/or on magnetic media is pure intangible property not covered by the “goods, wares, [or] merchandise” language of 18 USC 2314. Their decision is contrary to holdings in the other circuits which have considered the problem and is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Dowling.