for possession of unauthorized cellular access codes.The greatest injustice in the prosecution of Kevin Mitnick is revealed when one examines the actual harm to society (or lack thereof) which resulted from Kevin's actions. To the extent that Kevin is a "hacker" he must be considered a purist. The simple truth is that Kevin never sought monetary gain from his hacking, though it could have proven extremely profitable. Nor did he hack with the malicious intent to damage or destroy other people's property. Rather, Kevin pursued his hacking as a means of satisfying his intellectual curiosity and applying Yankee ingenuity. These attributes are more frequently promoted rather than punished by society. The ongoing case of Kevin Mitnick is gaining increased attention as the various issues and competing interests are played out in the arena of the courtroom. Exactly who Kevin Mitnick is and what he represents, however, is ultimately subject to personal interpretation and to the legacy which will be left by "The United States v. Kevin David Mitnick".Software piracy is the illegal duplication of copyrighted software. Intellectual property includes the results of intellectual activities in the arts, sciences, and industry. The expression of intellectual property can be copyrighted. Inventions are patented. Trade secrets are covered by contract law. Look-and-feel lawsuits can result from mimicking intellectual property. Software piracy is a serious worldwide problem. In fact, many countries have staggeringly high piracy rates - countries like Russia, China and Vietnam, just to name a few - some even close to the 100 percent mark. The worldwide piracy rate in 1998 was 38 percent, causing losses to the global software industry of approximately $11 billion according to a Business Software Alliance study. Unfortunately the problem is getting worse. In one year, from 1997 to 1998, the problem grew so dramatically that 2.5 million more software applicatio...
