4 ms·

The $25 includes the cost of a Windows license. The restore disks Lundgren was intending to distribute required the user to be in possession of a license alread

The $25 includes the cost of a Windows license. The restore disks Lundgren was intending to distribute required the user to be in possession of a license already. Lundgren should not have been sentenced to prison for this. At most he should have been punished for trademark infringement. It’s a god damn travesty that we have judges who don’t seem to understand the very important technical details of the court cases they are judging in.

treis 9y ago
I did a little bit more research and my original post was factually inaccurate, but the point was correct. An article from 2011 says this: >The original Microsoft (COA) attached to the PC does not allow you to reload Microsoft Windows software when no original recovery media is present. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mssmallbiz/2011/10/05/looking-to-provide-refurbished-pcs-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-microsoft-refurbisher-program/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mssmallbiz/2011/10/05/looki... So that's the crucial point. Yes, the software was free to download, but you needed the original recovery disk to legitimately sell a refurbished computer. By creating counterfeit disks he would enable refurbishers to avoid the fee to Microsoft.
- sevensor 9y ago
  > >The original Microsoft (COA) attached to the PC does not allow you to reload Microsoft Windows software when no original recovery media is present. Thank you for digging this up. This is an important point, and I think a lot of us, including myself and the hapless recycler, have naively assumed that sticker plus iso equals a legit install in Microsoft's eyes. Nevertheless, it's still a travesty that he was convicted for this.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > it's still a travesty that he was convicted for this Conviction seems fine. The fine is debatable but roughly okay. It’s the jail time that makes no sense.
  - treis 9y ago
    Oh come on. He wasn't a hapless recycler. He was the CEO of a 100 person for profit company processing 41 million pounds of stuff from IBM, Motorola, and Sprint. He knew exactly what he was doing. Who do you think he was intending to sell these CDs to? His own company, of course. And why? To increase his profit by $25 a computer. There's no other logical explanation. No one would go through the trouble of exactly replicating a physical CD with logos and all unless they had nefarious intentions.
    - sevensor 9y ago
      The article I read had him selling them for $0.25 per computer. $25 was the figure the court arrived at for the value of each disk. Other than that, your point is well taken. The portrayal of this guy as totally naive and well-intentioned is suspect.
      - learc83 9y ago
        $25 per computer is how much MS charges refurbishers, the GP's theory is that he intended to sell them to his own refurbishment company in order to save the $25 fee they'd otherwise have had to pay MS.
- oldcynic 9y ago
  So you apparently need the original recovery disk, and the original manuals? In other words MS are trying very hard to make selling refurbished computers impractical, so please throw it away, and buy a new one with new Windows licence. If the judge was on the ball the man should have been found guilty and fined 1c and attention drawn to ridiculous licencing in his summing up. Better for justice of course would be throwing out the terms of the licence and finding him not guilty.

treis 9y ago

I did a little bit more research and my original post was factually inaccurate, but the point was correct. An article from 2011 says this: >The original Microsoft (COA) attached to the PC does not allow you to reload Microsoft Windows software when no original recovery media is present. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mssmallbiz/2011/10/05/looking-to-provide-refurbished-pcs-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-microsoft-refurbisher-program/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mssmallbiz/2011/10/05/looki... So that's the crucial point. Yes, the software was free to download, but you needed the original recovery disk to legitimately sell a refurbished computer. By creating counterfeit disks he would enable refurbishers to avoid the fee to Microsoft.

sevensor 9y ago
> >The original Microsoft (COA) attached to the PC does not allow you to reload Microsoft Windows software when no original recovery media is present. Thank you for digging this up. This is an important point, and I think a lot of us, including myself and the hapless recycler, have naively assumed that sticker plus iso equals a legit install in Microsoft's eyes. Nevertheless, it's still a travesty that he was convicted for this.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > it's still a travesty that he was convicted for this Conviction seems fine. The fine is debatable but roughly okay. It’s the jail time that makes no sense.
- treis 9y ago
  Oh come on. He wasn't a hapless recycler. He was the CEO of a 100 person for profit company processing 41 million pounds of stuff from IBM, Motorola, and Sprint. He knew exactly what he was doing. Who do you think he was intending to sell these CDs to? His own company, of course. And why? To increase his profit by $25 a computer. There's no other logical explanation. No one would go through the trouble of exactly replicating a physical CD with logos and all unless they had nefarious intentions.
  - sevensor 9y ago
    The article I read had him selling them for $0.25 per computer. $25 was the figure the court arrived at for the value of each disk. Other than that, your point is well taken. The portrayal of this guy as totally naive and well-intentioned is suspect.
    - learc83 9y ago
      $25 per computer is how much MS charges refurbishers, the GP's theory is that he intended to sell them to his own refurbishment company in order to save the $25 fee they'd otherwise have had to pay MS.
oldcynic 9y ago
So you apparently need the original recovery disk, and the original manuals? In other words MS are trying very hard to make selling refurbished computers impractical, so please throw it away, and buy a new one with new Windows licence. If the judge was on the ball the man should have been found guilty and fined 1c and attention drawn to ridiculous licencing in his summing up. Better for justice of course would be throwing out the terms of the licence and finding him not guilty.