Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#111

Post by tialaramex »

lolc wrote: post #104
tialaramex wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government, whose prosecutors brought this case - aren't arguing that the cheese "could have been poisoned" except in the sense that we have no idea what counterfeiters might or might not get wrong in the process of knocking off a product and we _don't want to find out_ which is why counterfeiting is a criminal offence. Their argument is that Lundgren's product, a CD that says it's a Windows restore CD from Dell,…

As far as I understand the accused trafficked forgeries of Dell recovery CD. These CD do not include a Windows License and Microsoft does not sell such CD either. The article is lamenting that very misunderstanding was made by the court. Now you're saying the court got it right and the accused was actually selling Windows licenses. Who is right?

So, think this through. Why is there a market for thousands of these CDs? You have 140 perfectly good (but say four years old) PCs you paid £80 each for them from the people replacing them. You will clean them up, reformat, sell them for £200 each. It won't make you rich but it's a living and feels good. But, your buyers expect Windows. The people who sold them to you had Windows licenses, but they wiped the disk because of course they did. Microsoft offers a solution for £18. But a bloke you met at the place that sells spare parts for LaserJet printers says he can get the genuine OEM recovery CDs for half that and those would work. Bargain.

Lundgren couldn't sell Windows licenses any more than he could sell the Mona Lisa. He didn't have either. But he absolutely could sell a counterfeit product you can use "instead" of buying the license.

The argument that since the counterfeits are in fact worthless then the dollar amount for purposes of assessing severity is zero makes no sense. Of course the counterfeits are worthless. They're counterfeits. The law is pretty clear that the correct question is how much would the real thing be worth. It's not the court making that up, it's right in those sentencing guidelines.

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#112

Post by tripletao »

mchannon wrote: post #97
otakucode wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Louis Rossman did an interview with Lundgren on his YouTube Channel. Lundgren is no hero. He was not just burning some recovery CDs. He was actively seeking to deceive, actively telling his customers (other PC recyclers) that he was selling them legitimate recovery CDs manufactured by Dell, Lenovo, etc. Microsoft did not go to the government. The government went to Microsoft. It called Microsoft people as expert witn…

+1 for mentioning the interview, but a link would've been helpful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7hnVYMoctM Microsoft did claim they were worth $20, according to Gov. Exhibit 17. Most of your argument is thus false. District and appellate judges don't always make the right decisions, but that's what rehearings and the Supreme Court are for.

> Microsoft did claim they were worth $20, according to Gov. Exhibit 17. Most of your argument is thus false.

Microsoft thinks that the OEM license disappears if the original install media (CD or recovery partition) are lost. Your options at that point are to either (a) get a new OEM CD from the manufacturer, in which case the original license becomes valid again, or (b) buy a new license, for $20. I don't know enough about how Windows is licensed to say whether that's legally correct, but it's Microsoft's position.

Assuming that's correct, his customers thought they had a compliant license, because they thought they'd bought (a). They actually didn't, because the CD--even though it was bit-for-bit identical to the authentic one--had the wrong provenance. If his fake OEM CDs didn't exist, and the real OEM CDs weren't available either (which is apparently the case), then the customer's next best option would have been to buy a new license. Microsoft is claiming not that each of his disks was worth $20, but that each disk cost Microsoft $20 in revenue, because everyone who bought his fake OEM disk would have bought a real $20 license instead.

I still think the sentence is disproportionate and stupid, and the convoluted legal situation of Microsoft's own making seems to me like a good reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines (which already seem high to me). I'm not sure the $20 is as wrong as the article makes out.

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#113

Post by tripletao »

wbl wrote: post #83
cornholio wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright violation is not a criminal action unless done in an organised, for profit fashion as piracy. The fundamental piece of evidence the prosecution needed for that was the trumped up and bogus damages value Microsoft supplied. Hence, the title and article are correct.

He profited. Microsoft's losses are irrelevant.

The sentence is based on the (purported) losses to Microsoft. Exhibit 17:

https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#114

Post by syshum »

emodendroket wrote: post #101
syshum wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would not be a need for that type of for profit enterprise if Microsoft was a Responsible Corporation and provided tools for Recylers to restore their fully licensed Computers legally under the terms of the license they (Microsoft) sold with the equipment But Microsoft wants to profit an additional $25 above and beyond their original license costs for that same system

If that was the object, why the sustained effort to imitate the official packaging, rather than just honestly admitting the discs were reproductions? Is that really the issue, when part of the defense of this guy made in the linked article is that the actual disc content was available for download for free from MS?

you believe sending a person to a prison for over a year where there is a high likely hood they will be raped, beaten and abused is the proper punishment for "imitation of the official packaging"

you believe that giving a person a felony conviction where by they will be denied many rights, barred from renting property, be unable to obtain many jobs, and for the rest of their lives have their economic and social opportunities limited is the proper punishment for "imitation of the official packaging"

I am honestly shocked by a callous reactions people have had to this case on HN, either people do not really understand what it means to go to a Federal prison for over year, have a felony criminal record and how that will for ever impact this persons life... forever.

Or People have a massively inflated value of "official packaging" and the protection of corporate profits/intellectual privilege .

This guy did not murder anyone, this guy did not cost anyone a job, this guy did not harm anyone, even if you are correct that he was attempting to dupe recylcers into believing it was "official packaging" what is the actual harm to the world in that?

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#115

Post by syshum »

tripletao wrote: post #110
tripletao wrote: post #18

His punishment seems disproportionate and stupid (like, why are we spending money to lock him up instead of fining him more?); but he clearly intended to make disks that buyers would think were factory originals, and knew that he was breaking the law. From his email: > I can look in to the missing boxes - Usually in my history - Customs just ships them to you 3 weeks later. > If they call you - play stupid and just t…

I'm replying to my own comment to note that he claims these documents are not authentic, and were forged by a former business partner who wanted to cut a better deal for himself. He says the government took all his computers, lost all his computers, and found the doctored emails on the partner's computer. He says he no longer had access to the mail server. He isn't super clear on the specifics of what's forged and wh…

>>Microsoft seems to claim that the original license disappears when the original media

Citation from MS Legal (or exec Level) making this claim, I have never heard that in my 20+ years in IT

OEM License, legally, is tied to the Mainboard of the system (and some components of the MainBoard), that is the HardwareID MS uses to activate and record the activation.

the OEM SLIC is embedded in the BIOS/UEFI of major systems since Vista days, and I believe it was mandated for all OEM since Windows 8

There are virtually no systems today that ship with a physical restore media, and consumers are advised to make one themselves

So I would love to see someone from MS legal making this claim (which has no legal foundation)

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#116

Post by syshum »

tripletao wrote: post #112
mchannon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 for mentioning the interview, but a link would've been helpful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7hnVYMoctM Microsoft did claim they were worth $20, according to Gov. Exhibit 17. Most of your argument is thus false. District and appellate judges don't always make the right decisions, but that's what rehearings and the Supreme Court are for.

> Microsoft did claim they were worth $20, according to Gov. Exhibit 17. Most of your argument is thus false. Microsoft thinks that the OEM license disappears if the original install media (CD or recovery partition) are lost. Your options at that point are to either (a) get a new OEM CD from the manufacturer, in which case the original license becomes valid again, or (b) buy a new license, for $20. I don't know enoug…

> (b) buy a new license, for $20

There is no way for a consumer, buy a new license for $20. Their is program for Register Referbishers that allows a MRR to get a replacement COA, Create Restore Media, etc for $25. (note this is NOT a new license, in order to quality for this the PC has to have a OEM License) and requires a 14 page contract with MS that has all kinds of conditions and requirements on the person

https://www.msregrefurb.com/RRPSite/Templates/RR_ProgramAgre...

>Assuming that's correct,

I believe this to be a false assumption on your part. The License does not magically disappear if the Restore CD was lost, especially given the fact that I am not aware of any system on the market today that actually comes with a physical Restore CD anymore

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#117

Post by lolc »

tialaramex wrote: post #111
lolc wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand the accused trafficked forgeries of Dell recovery CD. These CD do not include a Windows License and Microsoft does not sell such CD either. The article is lamenting that very misunderstanding was made by the court. Now you're saying the court got it right and the accused was actually selling Windows licenses. Who is right?

So, think this through. Why is there a market for thousands of these CDs? You have 140 perfectly good (but say four years old) PCs you paid £80 each for them from the people replacing them. You will clean them up, reformat, sell them for £200 each. It won't make you rich but it's a living and feels good. But, your buyers expect Windows. The people who sold them to you had Windows licenses, but they wiped the disk bec…

You keep claiming that he sold licenses, albeit counterfeit ones. The way I understand it is he sold copies of recovery CD. Those could be used to restore a copy of Windows with a license from another source.

Maybe the license was on a sticker on the computer, maybe it was on a broken old medium. Maybe the people got a license key from another broken computer? What do we know? Why should the court care?

From what I read (just this one article) he never claimed to provide a Windows license. If you have more information please kindly share.

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#118

Post by tripletao »

syshum wrote: post #116
tripletao wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft did claim they were worth $20, according to Gov. Exhibit 17. Most of your argument is thus false. Microsoft thinks that the OEM license disappears if the original install media (CD or recovery partition) are lost. Your options at that point are to either (a) get a new OEM CD from the manufacturer, in which case the original license becomes valid again, or (b) buy a new license, for $20. I don't know enoug…

> (b) buy a new license, for $20 There is no way for a consumer, buy a new license for $20. Their is program for Register Referbishers that allows a MRR to get a replacement COA, Create Restore Media, etc for $25. (note this is NOT a new license, in order to quality for this the PC has to have a OEM License) and requires a 14 page contract with MS that has all kinds of conditions and requirements on the person https:…

> There is no way for a consumer, buy a new license for $20. That is program for Register Referbishers, and requires a 14 page contract with MS that has all kinds of conditions and requirements on the person

I think Microsoft is alleging that his CDs are designed for refurbishers who think they're getting the authentic OEM disk.

> I believe this to be a false assumption on your part. The License does not magically disappear if the Restore CD was lost, especially given the fact that I am not aware of any system on the market today that actually comes with a physical Restore CD anymore

I don't know the law well enough to comment, but Microsoft thinks it does:

> A new Windows license is not required for a refurbished PC that has:

> 1. The original Certificate of Authenticity (COA) for a Windows operating system affixed to the PC, and

> 2. The original recovery media or hard-disk based recovery image associated with the PC.

[...]

> A new Windows license is required for a refurbished PC if:

> 1. The refurbisher did not obtain the original recovery media along with the system to be refurbished or

> 2. The PC does not have a hard-disk based recovery image

https://www.msregrefurb.com/RRPSite/Information/LicensingGui...

So is Microsoft misinterpreting its own contracts? Is this in the contract with Microsoft refurbishers, but not Windows licensees in general? Is the contract unenforceable? Something else? This is the point where I need a lawyer...

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#119

Post by tripletao »

syshum wrote: post #115
tripletao wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm replying to my own comment to note that he claims these documents are not authentic, and were forged by a former business partner who wanted to cut a better deal for himself. He says the government took all his computers, lost all his computers, and found the doctored emails on the partner's computer. He says he no longer had access to the mail server. He isn't super clear on the specifics of what's forged and wh…

>>Microsoft seems to claim that the original license disappears when the original media Citation from MS Legal (or exec Level) making this claim, I have never heard that in my 20+ years in IT OEM License, legally, is tied to the Mainboard of the system (and some components of the MainBoard), that is the HardwareID MS uses to activate and record the activation. the OEM SLIC is embedded in the BIOS/UEFI of major system…

I guess the recovery partition doesn't count as media? Then let's say "media or recovery partition". I've excerpted from their guide at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16963255

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#120

Post by nailer »

syshum wrote: post #114
emodendroket wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was the object, why the sustained effort to imitate the official packaging, rather than just honestly admitting the discs were reproductions? Is that really the issue, when part of the defense of this guy made in the linked article is that the actual disc content was available for download for free from MS?

you believe sending a person to a prison for over a year where there is a high likely hood they will be raped, beaten and abused is the proper punishment for "imitation of the official packaging" you believe that giving a person a felony conviction where by they will be denied many rights, barred from renting property, be unable to obtain many jobs, and for the rest of their lives have their economic and social oppor…

I think you are arguing that the defendent does not deserve a harsh punishment, which is correct.

The comment you're replying to is argiung that the defendent is guilty of deliberate fraud, which is also correct.

Neither of these affect the truth of the other.

Post reply on HN