3 ms·
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."
by _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
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."
- kosievdmerwe 8y agoThe judge's counter point[1]: > 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._clifford_eric_lundgren.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2018/04/11/united_states_v...