Who said anything about politics? It would be just a team move, happens all the time - if the guy is liked, his minions might follow him wherever he's going to land. PS. Successful stat-arb/HF PMs seem to be in demand, at least in my recent experience.
In a technical case like this, I would trust the judgement of people in the industry, rather than a jury assembled from the public.
I theory, sure. Just like a men's magazine is probably not going to do a good job covering a technical case like this? However, maybe I'd trust anyone who had the actual facts about a case over those who didn't and were admittedly just speculating? And maybe, just maybe, you might want to get the opinion of a software company owner who put a significant part of their net worth into paying developers to build proprietary code? Rather than just a bunch of developers who claimed that it was fine to steal code and take it to your next job because everyone did it, even though I guarantee every one of them signed an agreement specifically saying they wouldn't and just thinking about it for two seconds under nearly any legal or ethics system shows it to be illegal and wrong? You know that whole part about how all sides of an issue are represented in a case we've got going here in the U.S.?
I'm pretty sure the author of that article is Michael Lewis. The one who wrote: Liar's Poker The New New Thing The Big Short Flash Boys He writes about technical subjects and he does a pretty good job covering them.
The guy who has a very public beef with pretty much the entire investment banking industry, that guy? Talk about bias!
Just because he has a beef with the investment banking industry, doesn't mean he is wrong. Have you even read any of his books? Apparently you are in favor of protecting corporate interests (apparently because you own a business), while letting individuals hang out to dry.
Actually I have read all his books, I think he's a great author. But no one, least of all him, would claim he doesn't have a bone to pick with the i-banking industry. Merely pointing out a "jury" needs to be either unbiased or at the very least represent both points of view on an issue. The Salon "jury" was neither. At this point we're just going point by point through exactly the same fallacies you brought up in the last thread on this, so why don't you just go reread that and give it a rest.