3 ms·

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 an

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.