3 ms·
A more reasonable interpretation of this is that the purpose of the disc had to be clear. If a customer needs something to restore their Dell, they are looking
by lawnchair_larry 9y ago
A more reasonable interpretation of this is that the purpose of the disc had to be clear. If a customer needs something to restore their Dell, they are looking for something that says it’s a Dell restore disk.
If there were a profit component to this, using their trademark looks damning. In context, though, it’s clear that the intention is convenience for the customer to identify the correct tool. That doesn’t grant an exemption to violating trademarks, but the penalty should be proportional.
For 28,000 discs at 25 cents each, after shipping and printing costs, this guy is not making money.
Throwing him in jail for helping confused old people get their PC back up and running is a travesty.
- Hamuko 9y agoHe was not selling the discs for 25 cents each. That's the story he's spinning in the media to look like the good guy. You can see in the appeals document that his price was not near 25 cents. >Lundgren objected to the PSR infringement amount. He argued that the Sentencing Guidelines required the court to use an infringement amount of about $4 per disk, which was the price for which Lundgren and Wolff were selling their copies.