7 ms·

Hey, I'm the author. Yeah he's 100% guilty of counterfeiting, pleaded guilty and acknowledged everything up front, faking the discs and everything. The issue I

Hey, I'm the author. Yeah he's 100% guilty of counterfeiting, pleaded guilty and acknowledged everything up front, faking the discs and everything. The issue I and others have been trying to highlight is that as you say that Microsoft overstated the value, not a little, but a lot, and also contrary to the basic facts of the matter. Essentially he committed one crime and was sentenced for another. He was selling recovery discs with no licenses, which are free for anyone to create on their own or for refurbishers to burn as many as they'd like of. They pay Microsoft for bulk licenses then print as many discs as they need. Lundgren never sold or attempted to sell licenses, which of course create the value of the product. The discs were worth the convenience cost of however much a shop would pay to not have to print them themselves. No Microsoft sales were harmed, if a license was needed Microsoft is the only place to get it, these discs are for re-installation purposes. Microsoft in this case convinced a judge that a "copy" of Windows is worth the same whether it is licensed or not. That's not true, and as if it weren't enough that this misrepresentation of the facts took the day in court, a guy is going to prison for 15 months because of it — the sentence was directly affected by the value determined by Microsoft's $25-per-disc assertion. If the discs were valued accurately he might have had a fine and probation, or a month in jail. I wrote another post talking about this earlier: https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/25/how-microsoft-helped-imprison-a-man-for-counterfeiting-software-it-gives-away-for-free/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/25/how-microsoft-helped-impri... and for what it's worth regarding the $80K and $28K payments, Lundgren's account of it is the first was for all kinds of stuff his Source Captain company manufactured over there for refurbishing purposes (old hard drive cases, CD caddies, weird screws) and the second never took place because the goods were never sent — all confiscated in the raid on Wolff's place.

textmode 8y ago
Naive question: Could one summarise this case as trafficking a "counterfeit" free download in CD format, or, alternatively, as trafficking a "counterfeit" free CD, where the reason the download or CD is "free" is because it contains software that cannot be run without an individual, nontransferable "activation code". For example, software company distributes free CDs that contain copy of software, however software cannot be run without a non-transferable activation code. Unauthorised copying of printed label or contents of CD could be copyright infringement. Assuming it is, what are the damages? What is value of CD without activation code? (e.g. cost of the optical media) What is value of CD with activation code? (e.g. cost of the software license) Which measure is appropriate?
- devindotcom 8y ago
  Not naive at all, that's exactly the situation and that's how the defense explained it to the courts. Lundgren copped to violating Dell's copyright right away. The value of the disc without the product key or license code or activation code, however you want to describe it, is basically in the convenience of not having to print it yourself. Microsoft argued that the value was that of fully licensed software, ultimately $25 per disc, which is what refurbishers pay for new Windows licenses to install on computers, should they require them.
zeusk 8y ago
> Microsoft in this case convinced a judge that a "copy" of Windows is worth the same whether it is licensed or not. That's not true, and as if it weren't enough that this misrepresentation of the facts took the day in court, a guy is going to prison for 15 months because of it — the sentence was directly affected by the value determined by Microsoft's $25-per-disc assertion. If the discs were valued accurately he might have had a fine and probation, or a month in jail. And how exactly did you arrive at this judgement? Restitution is solely to make whole on the financial damage. His jail term is completely appropriate for counterfeiting and piracy with intent to distribute and profit under federal jurisdiction.
- devindotcom 8y ago
  The sentence is based on the value of the infringed goods, right? A recovery disc doesn't have the same value as a Windows license - Microsoft gives one away and charges for the other. The discs only have value to someone who already has a product key or buys one alongside it. As far as I can tell no damage was demonstrated at all. Microsoft doesn't sell or make these discs, and Dell (once) provided them for free alongside existing licensed installs. I'm not sure what the appropriate sentence should have been, but I strongly disagree that it's this. Those discs were not worth $700,000. Were they worth $200,000? 6 month term. $20,000? Fine and probation. They were worth something, all right, but not $700,000. That's just not accurate.
  - zeusk 8y ago
    > I strongly disagree that it's this. Those discs were not worth $700,000. Were they worth $200,000? 6 month term. $20,000? Fine and probation. Is your sentence estimation accurate? > The sentence is based on the value of the infringed goods, right? For financial restitution part of the judgement, yes. But for any deterrence in terms of jail time or restrictions on further operations it isn't as nuanced as you put it out to be, it does not matter whether you intended to counterfeit and distribute $100,000 worth of goods or $1,000,000 worth of goods. > Were they worth ... $20,000? His own bank/paypal transaction records and emails show they were worth much more than that.
- syshum 8y ago
cwyers 8y ago
Your articles are incorrect and your journalistic standards are awful. Like, the one you link here, written on 4/25: > Lundgren, by the way, is not some scammer looking to fleece a few people and make a quick buck. He has been a major figure on the e-waste scene, working to minimize the toxic wages of planned obsolescence and running a company of 100 to responsibly refurbish or recycle old computers and other devices. From Microsoft: > Part of Mr. Lundgren’s defense also involved claims that he was trying to provide the community with something that was freely available anyway. This claim was rejected by the district court and the Court of Appeals. This is because Microsoft itself sells genuine versions of these CDs to refurbishers (hence the market for selling counterfeit copies). In addition, Mr. Lundgren took great pains to disguise the counterfeit software he imported, including arranging for fake Microsoft and Dell labels to be applied to the discs. > In an email sent in December of 2011, Mr. Lundgren said to his co-defendant, > “You would have to be an expert with a magnifying glass to know and/or see such differences.” “You must have been trying to supply these units to Amazon directly or someone who is expert.” > He went on to say, > “C’mon Bob, you should be able to sell these units to anyone whom is not trying to sell them back to Bill Gates.” > And, > “Please sell some of these units. You MUST have some other buyers for this product – and if you do not, then find some. It has been months and I have not seen the return I was expecting to use for my India project buddy.” > He concluded, > “No normal company or buyer will notice such issues.” “Make me proud so that our business can grow and we can keep winning.” > Mr. Lundgren also tried to evade U.S. Customs and coached his codefendant how to handle questions from federal agents. In 2011 he wrote: > “There are tricks for bypassing customs with container’s & LTL but currently this is how I get these products without invoices past customs.” > And, referring to customs officers: > “If they call you just play stupid and tell them you ordered from an asset management broker overseas.” > Mr. Lundgren and co-defendant Bob Wolff explicitly discussed deceiving people with the counterfeit software. In one email to Mr. Lundgren about the software he’s arranging to manufacture, Mr. Wolff writes: > “If the software will be 98% accurate I believe I can get away with that.” He was urging people to sell these discs as genuine and coaching them on how to lie if they got caught.
- devindotcom 8y ago
  No one is disputing that he counterfeited the disc labels and committed a crime in doing so. The issue is that judges used a value provided by Microsoft for the discs that is counter to fact (license =/= recovery disc, counterfeit or not) and massively inflated his sentence as a result.

textmode 8y ago

Naive question: Could one summarise this case as trafficking a "counterfeit" free download in CD format, or, alternatively, as trafficking a "counterfeit" free CD, where the reason the download or CD is "free" is because it contains software that cannot be run without an individual, nontransferable "activation code". For example, software company distributes free CDs that contain copy of software, however software cannot be run without a non-transferable activation code. Unauthorised copying of printed label or contents of CD could be copyright infringement. Assuming it is, what are the damages? What is value of CD without activation code? (e.g. cost of the optical media) What is value of CD with activation code? (e.g. cost of the software license) Which measure is appropriate?

devindotcom 8y ago
Not naive at all, that's exactly the situation and that's how the defense explained it to the courts. Lundgren copped to violating Dell's copyright right away. The value of the disc without the product key or license code or activation code, however you want to describe it, is basically in the convenience of not having to print it yourself. Microsoft argued that the value was that of fully licensed software, ultimately $25 per disc, which is what refurbishers pay for new Windows licenses to install on computers, should they require them.

zeusk 8y ago

> Microsoft in this case convinced a judge that a "copy" of Windows is worth the same whether it is licensed or not. That's not true, and as if it weren't enough that this misrepresentation of the facts took the day in court, a guy is going to prison for 15 months because of it — the sentence was directly affected by the value determined by Microsoft's $25-per-disc assertion. If the discs were valued accurately he might have had a fine and probation, or a month in jail. And how exactly did you arrive at this judgement? Restitution is solely to make whole on the financial damage. His jail term is completely appropriate for counterfeiting and piracy with intent to distribute and profit under federal jurisdiction.

devindotcom 8y ago
The sentence is based on the value of the infringed goods, right? A recovery disc doesn't have the same value as a Windows license - Microsoft gives one away and charges for the other. The discs only have value to someone who already has a product key or buys one alongside it. As far as I can tell no damage was demonstrated at all. Microsoft doesn't sell or make these discs, and Dell (once) provided them for free alongside existing licensed installs. I'm not sure what the appropriate sentence should have been, but I strongly disagree that it's this. Those discs were not worth $700,000. Were they worth $200,000? 6 month term. $20,000? Fine and probation. They were worth something, all right, but not $700,000. That's just not accurate.
- zeusk 8y ago
  > I strongly disagree that it's this. Those discs were not worth $700,000. Were they worth $200,000? 6 month term. $20,000? Fine and probation. Is your sentence estimation accurate? > The sentence is based on the value of the infringed goods, right? For financial restitution part of the judgement, yes. But for any deterrence in terms of jail time or restrictions on further operations it isn't as nuanced as you put it out to be, it does not matter whether you intended to counterfeit and distribute $100,000 worth of goods or $1,000,000 worth of goods. > Were they worth ... $20,000? His own bank/paypal transaction records and emails show they were worth much more than that.
syshum 8y ago

cwyers 8y ago

Your articles are incorrect and your journalistic standards are awful. Like, the one you link here, written on 4/25: > Lundgren, by the way, is not some scammer looking to fleece a few people and make a quick buck. He has been a major figure on the e-waste scene, working to minimize the toxic wages of planned obsolescence and running a company of 100 to responsibly refurbish or recycle old computers and other devices. From Microsoft: > Part of Mr. Lundgren’s defense also involved claims that he was trying to provide the community with something that was freely available anyway. This claim was rejected by the district court and the Court of Appeals. This is because Microsoft itself sells genuine versions of these CDs to refurbishers (hence the market for selling counterfeit copies). In addition, Mr. Lundgren took great pains to disguise the counterfeit software he imported, including arranging for fake Microsoft and Dell labels to be applied to the discs. > In an email sent in December of 2011, Mr. Lundgren said to his co-defendant, > “You would have to be an expert with a magnifying glass to know and/or see such differences.” “You must have been trying to supply these units to Amazon directly or someone who is expert.” > He went on to say, > “C’mon Bob, you should be able to sell these units to anyone whom is not trying to sell them back to Bill Gates.” > And, > “Please sell some of these units. You MUST have some other buyers for this product – and if you do not, then find some. It has been months and I have not seen the return I was expecting to use for my India project buddy.” > He concluded, > “No normal company or buyer will notice such issues.” “Make me proud so that our business can grow and we can keep winning.” > Mr. Lundgren also tried to evade U.S. Customs and coached his codefendant how to handle questions from federal agents. In 2011 he wrote: > “There are tricks for bypassing customs with container’s & LTL but currently this is how I get these products without invoices past customs.” > And, referring to customs officers: > “If they call you just play stupid and tell them you ordered from an asset management broker overseas.” > Mr. Lundgren and co-defendant Bob Wolff explicitly discussed deceiving people with the counterfeit software. In one email to Mr. Lundgren about the software he’s arranging to manufacture, Mr. Wolff writes: > “If the software will be 98% accurate I believe I can get away with that.” He was urging people to sell these discs as genuine and coaching them on how to lie if they got caught.

devindotcom 8y ago
No one is disputing that he counterfeited the disc labels and committed a crime in doing so. The issue is that judges used a value provided by Microsoft for the discs that is counter to fact (license =/= recovery disc, counterfeit or not) and massively inflated his sentence as a result.