Thanks for the link to the decision. It seems to me like the key point is: >In particular, the court noted that it did not find it reasonable to believe that

Thanks for the link to the decision. It seems to me like the key point is: >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. Since the idea that they had "no value" was not accepted and since the CD's had actually the MS and Dell logo's the Law shifts the value (and thus the sentencing) from the value of the "infringing" good to the value of the "infringed" one. All in all, it seems to me more like a case of "counterfeit Gucci bags" than a purely unauthorized software redistribution related one ... EDIT: the last sentence above was meant as: All in all, it seems to me that the Courts treated it more like a case of "counterfeit Gucci bags" than a purely unauthorized software redistribution related one ...