by iamjeff on 4/30/18, 6:15 AM with 121 comments
by mchannon on 4/30/18, 12:10 PM
If Microsoft caught him violating their copyright, and it bothered Microsoft, Microsoft should have sued in civil court. That is the purpose of civil court- to penalize wrongdoing by companies. Happens all the time.
But Microsoft was never going to recover anything in civil court.
So Microsoft lied to the US government about the value of what was being "stolen", and got the US government to foot the bill of prosecuting the case.
This is called a civil-criminal hybrid case. It should be civilly prosecuted, but the US government gets in cahoots with a corporation and the pair conspire to make it a criminal prosecution, which allows the corporation to de facto imprison any person it helps to convict.
Microsoft was able to avoid the lion's share of the legal fees, and won't be responsible for any fees when and if the case is successfully appealed. You will, as a taxpayer, footing the DOJ's bill.
Any restitution Mr. Lundgren pays will be far higher a return than Microsoft could have gained in a civil case. As for the investigating body within the government, it gets enriched through forfeiture. Everybody wins, except the small guy and the taxpayer.
Mr. Lundgren might have been in a stronger position if he had not pled guilty to two of the counts. Whether to sign away your integrity for a potentially lighter sentence is a decision no one should have to make.
by tripletao on 4/30/18, 12:35 PM
> 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 tell them that you ordered from an asset management overseas.
> Tell him that the product was guaranteed to be real and that you paid a very high price for it. Act upset as to why you had not received your product yet.
Obviously cherry-picked by the prosecutors; but there's a lot more, and it makes him look much worse than the press coverage does.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...
ETA: And why do the media keep repeating the $0.25/disk? There's a PO where he sold some for $3 or $4 each. Less than the stupid $25, but not charity.
by lolc on 4/30/18, 12:27 PM
Referring to Microsoft Windows as "free software" is just wrong. Microsoft Windows is not Free Software. Even if you leave out the caps intending to refer to price only, the title is wrong. Windows is not for free. You can only get unlicensed copies for free. Which is what the article is about.
by skate22 on 4/30/18, 11:45 AM
"His actual crime, which he pleaded guilty to, was counterfeiting the packaging to make the discs pass for Dell-branded ones."
He misled his customers in order to make money.
This isnt really different than selling knock off gucci handbags. Sure they probably work & look the same, but it does damage to the legitimate brand.
by roel_v on 4/30/18, 2:09 PM
"Furthermore: People weren’t buying software, let alone “counterfeit software.” The discs in question are at best “unauthorized” copies of software provided for free by Microsoft, not really a term that carries a lot of legal or even rhetorical weight."
I can even... just... What does that even mean? What does 'buying the software' mean vs 'buying the licence'? This author clearly has no idea about copyright law at all, and has constructed a complete alternative narrative in his head, which he is then using to attack a straw man.
A 'licence' is a contract between two parties, in which one party (usually) agrees to pay a certain amount of money (the 'licence fee') and where the other party then lets the one paying the fee make a copy of some work to use it. A copyright holder, and he/she alone, has the right to make copies or authorize others to make copies of a work. So 'unauthorized copies' are the very definition of copyright infringement. What does the author mean 'not really a term that carries a lot of legal weight'? This whole artificial 'Microsoft makes it available for free online and you're not really buying that, you're buying the licence' is complete jibber jabber - sure you can download it, but the terms put very clear restrictions on who can download it, why and what can be done with it after.
And yes there's all sorts of confounding factors - how much did the guy charge, and this is a criminal case and not a civil one, and there is the Dell branding thing, and there is intent, on and on. But my point is: this author shouldn't write about things he clearly has absolutely no clue about.
by jmull on 4/30/18, 2:41 PM
The lie is in the first sentence: "...15 months in prison for selling discs that let people reinstall Windows on licensed machines.
(emphasis mine)
The prosecution successfully argued the machines these discs were meant to be sold with did not have valid Windows licenses (and that these discs were part of an effort to avoid purchasing them).
You will want to find another article on this case to read about it since this dances fast to avoid addressing it.
We have a crime, a guilty plea, and sentencing. And a careful review in the appeal. Hard to see what's wrong here.
by Hamuko on 4/30/18, 6:40 AM
by notahacker on 4/30/18, 11:53 AM
by scandox on 4/30/18, 12:10 PM
by notahacker on 4/30/18, 3:10 PM
by nailer on 4/30/18, 12:11 PM
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...
by petraeus on 4/30/18, 2:27 PM
by petraeus on 4/30/18, 2:26 PM
by PerilousD on 4/30/18, 2:22 PM
by DEFCON28 on 4/30/18, 1:24 PM