241–250 of 273 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what ticks other people off but the problem I have with this is not with the sentencing, but the fact that Microsoft decided it had nothing better to do than go after a guy who was actually trying to do some good by promoting recycling. It's not like we have an oversupply of that in this world.
Their objective and fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders.
Everybody is reading this wrong, which isn't a huge surprise because the Post seems to have nobody on hand who understands the facts of the case and relied on an interview with Lundgren heavily. He was not providing people with restore media they could use to fix their own machines. He was taking the restore media, burning it onto discs _with official Microsoft and Dell logos on them_ and then _selling them to comput…
How are the disks counterfeit? As far as I understand they are functioning exactly like the 'official' disks. Etching the brand on them makes them more easily recognizable, as to what purpose they serve. There is no technical difference between the 'original' disk and the ones this person manufactured, so there is no possible intent to fool anyone. Nobody 'owns' a name or a logo. Intellectual property is impossible.…
Do you program in C++? This is like asking "How is this pointer to X not a pointer to Y? The bytes are the same!" They may be, but that's simply not how the rules work...
I want to know what harm he has done or what danger he poses to society that warrants a 15 month prison sentence. I feel like this is what pardons are for.
We're seeing the reason for the U.S.'s >1% of adult population incarceration rate. The solution isn't occasional pardons but massive reform of the 51 criminal judicial systems in the U.S.
Everybody is reading this wrong, which isn't a huge surprise because the Post seems to have nobody on hand who understands the facts of the case and relied on an interview with Lundgren heavily. He was not providing people with restore media they could use to fix their own machines. He was taking the restore media, burning it onto discs _with official Microsoft and Dell logos on them_ and then _selling them to comput…
> restore media likely voids that Windows license agreement. I've bought plenty of Microsoft media in my lifetime. They will tell you the only thing that matters is the COA. If the COA came with the computer the license is still valid. He wasn't selling discs with counterfit COAs on them he was selling recycled restore disks to go with computers that already had a valid COA. So unless there is something else in the r…
License != Trademark
Main point: "The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony. 'I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was,' Lundgren said."
> In particular, the court noted that it did not find it reasonable to believe that Lundgren and his codefendant had spent at least around $80,000 to create discs that had no value.
They intended to get profit by creating counterfeit media. Trademarks are one of the most important intellectual property laws, without them you cannot rely on a company's reputation to inform you what to buy or even whether they followed safety regulations for more physical kinds of property. Since why would a counterfeiter waste money on safety: their reputation isn't getting damaged.
If you allow counterfeit media like this guy tried to do, you can't rely on the fact that the media doesn't have malware on it. Cause while I don't think Lundgren added malware, if you allow counterfeit discs, someone else eventually would.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2018/04/11/united_states_v...
This is a travesty. It reminds me of Aaron Swartz.
> It reminds me of Aaron Swartz Aaron Swartz wilfully broke the law. This man didn’t. Not a good comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't thrown out, the judge ignored it. Another commentor dug up more detailed information, which intimated that the defendant wouldn't have made $80,000 worth of discs that had no value.
> the defendant wouldn't have made $80,000 worth of discs that had no value To be fair, arguing that someone you sold has no value is a bit hare-brained. All that said, this is a side show. The criminal sentencing resulted, principally, from his using others' logos without permission on a product he sold. The combination of infringement and commerce is apparently something our laws are paranoid about.
It protects you from shoddy fakes that do stuff like install malware (which other counterfeiters might have tried if the law were more lax on counterfeits) or stuff not following safety guidelines (like fake chargers that burn your house down).
Well enforced trademark law means that you as a buyer can investigate a seller and know what you're getting based on their reputation. And well enforced trademark law means that you as a seller are incentivized to protect your brand by making good/safe products.
EDIT: you can argue copyright or patents are bad, but fundamentally I cannot see the world be a better place without trademark laws in some form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like he said in his defense, if he had labeled it "Eric's Restore Disc" instead of putting the Dell and Windows logo on it, he probably would have skirted any real repercussions. How is that a defense?!? Yes, it's true that if you don't crime, you don't get punished for crime, but... he crimed. And, from the article: > Lundgren had 28,000 of the disks made and shipped to a broker in Florida. Their plan was to sell…
>if you don't crime, you don't get punished for crime If only...
Everybody is reading this wrong, which isn't a huge surprise because the Post seems to have nobody on hand who understands the facts of the case and relied on an interview with Lundgren heavily. He was not providing people with restore media they could use to fix their own machines. He was taking the restore media, burning it onto discs _with official Microsoft and Dell logos on them_ and then _selling them to comput…
Further, the key point of this decision seems to be the value of each disk: Several hundreds of dollers, for a new retail licensed copy of Windows; $25, the price MS apparently charges for a restore disk and a OS license; or the price of a blank disk, plus the time it takes to download from MS and burn it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> restore media likely voids that Windows license agreement. I've bought plenty of Microsoft media in my lifetime. They will tell you the only thing that matters is the COA. If the COA came with the computer the license is still valid. He wasn't selling discs with counterfit COAs on them he was selling recycled restore disks to go with computers that already had a valid COA. So unless there is something else in the r…
> I've bought plenty of Microsoft media in my lifetime. They will tell you the only thing that matters is the COA. If the COA came with the computer the license is still valid. License != Trademark