Their general counsel does indeed appear to be taking ownership of this strategy. I wrote a short, polite email to their Board of Directors address (in my professional capacity as someone who works in this field) asking the directors to consider reviewing the company's legal strategy in light of recent controversy about this case. I received the following reply, which I hope is okay to paste here, since I assume it's a common response they're sending out to all inquiries (not a private email specifically to me), and tells the story as they see it:

Thank you for your email regarding Cisco's legal strategy, which will be provided to the Board of Directors together with this response. We appreciate your input and interest in our company.

In the specific case you referenced, Cisco discovered what it believed to be theft of Cisco software by Mr Adekeye. We brought civil claims against him and his company, and reported the matter to law enforcement, as we customarily do when we believe we have been a victim of theft. After nearly two years of independent investigation, the United States Secret Service issued a criminal complaint alleging that Mr. Adekeye violated the United States Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in 97 separate instances. As a result, a United States District Court judge signed an arrest warrant for Mr. Adekeye. The decision as to whether to prosecute any criminal matter must be made by governmental authorities, and not by any private citizen or company, and Cisco in no way controlled the bringing of criminal charges against Mr Adekeye, nor did we contact any other agency regarding the matter.

Separately, as part of the civil lawsuit, Cisco presented evidence that Mr. Adekeye repeatedly stole information and software from Cisco using a current employee's credentials to access Cisco's computer network. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with Cisco, and ruled that Mr. Adekeye's conduct violated the U.S. federal anti-hacking statute.

The Canadian judge apparently objected to the fact that Mr. Adekeye was arrested by Canadian authorities during a civil justice proceeding. This is a matter between the US and Canadian governments, and we believe any person or entity concerned about theft of its property would have acted as we did. We strenuously object to the judge's characterization of Cisco's actions, which was based on Mr. Adekeye's allegations in a proceeding in which we did not participate and in which we had no opportunity to present any information.

Again, thank you for your email.

Sincerely,

Mark Chandler

Senior Vice President, Legal Services, General Counsel and Secretary

Cisco Systems, Inc.