It's lesson number #1 (don't use your employer's computer off-hours when working on your own projects) for people that try to build something outside their company's influence.
Hard to believe that this isn't also some kind of tort or trespass of which AOL could bring charges against him or stake a claim should he have some future gain from activities done at their expense (as nominal as that is).
I'm surprised they are treating it the way they are other than the obvious negative publicity that would ensue.
I mean if someone stayed for months in a department store overnight I don't think they would laugh it off or it might attract others to do the same.
Negative publicity can be a very strong motivator.
It feels like not a week goes by that 'the internet' learns about some yahoo suing some other guy for shaky reasons, and becoming infamous as a result.
Soon after that the yahoo has to change his name and move to Tijuana.
But yes, I think you're right. The negative backlash that AOL would get for attacking this kid vastly outweighs any sort of benefit they'd get. Now, this is all about spin and PR.
The response from the AOL spokesperson makes it seem like they are taking the incident in good humour:
"It was always our intention to facilitate entrepreneurialism in the Palo Alto office -- we just didn't expect it to work so well."
(I think the answer in this case is: I didn't take any action to receive the heat. Now the question is: why can't I legally decrypt satellite TV that's being blasted through my brain 24/7?)
Purchasing equipment that significantly enhances your ability to decrypt the signal (eg: a pre-programmed or altered smart card) is where you run into issues.
Additionally, unauthorized decryption of a copyrighted program or movie is a violation of the DMCA, 17 USC 1201(a)(1): "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Or they could keep him tied up in court trying to argue his way out of it.
The only reason why he is going to make it out of this okay is the bad press that AOL would get for going after him.
If he used AOL computers (which it sounds like he didn't) they may or may not have grounds for a case but this is really stretching it.
And when his website opens up it plays "You've Got Mail" which proves it.
An employment contract usually stipulates that all work done while being paid by the employer is work for hire, unless otherwise stipulated. In this case, no such contract exists. Intellectual property is default owned by the creator unless explicitly transferred otherwise.
There's a claim to be made here on trespassing and possibly illegal use of resources, which can be recovered through small claims. But there's really very little case to be made that the IP created through the trespass and use of resources somehow transfer to AOL simply by reason of their ownership of the infrastructure.
California law protects individual side projects extremely well. I am not a lawyer, I could be wrong, but I believe these concerns are absolutely irrelevant in California. Relevant elsewhere, but not here.
2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that
an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights
in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention
that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without
using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities ...
I'm not a lawyer either, but that was always the advice I've been given.
Now this kid was just dumb. By using AOL resources without permission he now has all sorts of potential issues. Probably the only thing that kept him out of jail was the good will of AOL.