3 ms·

You're missing the whole crux of the story. The supposed law broken here (none, actually) is based on multiple judges being absolutely clueless about technology

by natch 9y ago

You're missing the whole crux of the story. The supposed law broken here (none, actually) is based on multiple judges being absolutely clueless about technology and refusing the regard the testimony of an expert witness who was trying to set the first judge straight.

kbenson 9y ago
The other thing that makes this story different than most the others you hear about is that there wasn't multiple layers of indirection and middle-management working on vague ideas of what was wanted by their executive management (wink-wink-nudge-nudge). That's one of the sad truths about life. Those that break the law, or do things seen as unsavory, take pains to hide their actions, motivations, and responsibility. Those attempting to do good that inadvertently break the law don't take those steps because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong, or that if people thought they were they could of course explain away the misunderstanding. What you're left with is this, where the majority of corporate malfeasance goes unpunished or severely under-punished, but the accidental minor criminal gets jail time. It's definitely a failure of the legal system, but how do you address the fact that those that worry about being caught up in the legal system will be more prepared for if they eventually are?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The supposed law broken here (none, actually) is based on multiple judges being absolutely clueless about technology The problem is we criminally charge commercial infringement. The defendant put others' logos on disks he sold. This shouldn't result in jail time, but that's what the law says. The problem isn't the court, it's the law.
- Cookiesaurusbex 9y ago
  > The problem isn't the court, it's the law. >The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony. “I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was,” Lundgren said. Oh, I think there was a problem with the court.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony That testimony seems irrelevant to the charge which resulted in the jail time. Theoretically valueless or not, the discs were sold with an infringing logo. That combination--infringement and commercial intent--is a crime under our laws.

by natch 9y ago

kbenson 9y ago

The other thing that makes this story different than most the others you hear about is that there wasn't multiple layers of indirection and middle-management working on vague ideas of what was wanted by their executive management (wink-wink-nudge-nudge). That's one of the sad truths about life. Those that break the law, or do things seen as unsavory, take pains to hide their actions, motivations, and responsibility. Those attempting to do good that inadvertently break the law don't take those steps because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong, or that if people thought they were they could of course explain away the misunderstanding. What you're left with is this, where the majority of corporate malfeasance goes unpunished or severely under-punished, but the accidental minor criminal gets jail time. It's definitely a failure of the legal system, but how do you address the fact that those that worry about being caught up in the legal system will be more prepared for if they eventually are?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> The supposed law broken here (none, actually) is based on multiple judges being absolutely clueless about technology The problem is we criminally charge commercial infringement. The defendant put others' logos on disks he sold. This shouldn't result in jail time, but that's what the law says. The problem isn't the court, it's the law.

Cookiesaurusbex 9y ago
> The problem isn't the court, it's the law. >The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony. “I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was,” Lundgren said. Oh, I think there was a problem with the court.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony That testimony seems irrelevant to the charge which resulted in the jail time. Theoretically valueless or not, the discs were sold with an infringing logo. That combination--infringement and commercial intent--is a crime under our laws.