3 ms·
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 scamm
by cwyers 9y 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 9y agoNo 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.
- cwyers 9y agoYou said he's "not some scammer looking to fleece a few people and make a quick buck." Look at this e-mail: https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/Email_image3.png https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/Ema... I have no idea how anyone, after reading this e-mail, can conclude that he was not trying to scam buyers into believing they were buying something other than counterfeit material, unawares, and then sell it to customers who were equally unaware they were buying counterfeits. "Work hard and get these moved to any other buyer. No nomral company or buyer will notice such isuses and every month you spend sitting on this product is another month XP get's older and my assets become worth less." "I have not seen the return that I was expecting to use for my India project buddy." Those are Lundgren's _own words._ And nobody who read the article you wrote and linked to would have that context. They would, in fact, have your words to the opposite.
- zeusk 9y ago> 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. You don't understand Criminal Law if you believe that statement is true. Above a certain threshold, the sentence is more of a precedent and deterrence.
- devindotcom 9y agoYou can see how the sentence increases with the value in the chart at 2b1.1 (b)(1) here: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/2015-chapter-2-c#NaN https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/2015-... The value of the goods matters a great deal. The sentencing documents go into detail on it. The 11th court judge writes that the previous sentencing range, which he affirmed, was "largely based on a calculation that valued the infringed goods at $700,000." That put it in the range of 37-46 months, and prosecutors had threatened more early on when valuing the discs at $299 each. The plea deal took it down to 15.