Submitted by Michael Deal, May 5, 2007 17:46

Mr. Mak's completeness on applications is immaterial: The real question is whether this information was already publicly available. If so, then regardless of his intent, there was no crime because the information was not restricted. The prosecution lied when they told the judge that this rule didn't apply to China.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.