4 ms·

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

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.

cwyers 8y ago
You 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 8y 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 8y ago
  You 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.
  - zeusk 8y ago
    Guidelines and base severity levels only specify a maximum sentence, with counterfeit goods crossing state and national boundaries 15 months is completely appropriate.
    - nebulous1 8y ago
      Wait, now your're saying that the value of the goods changes the sentencing guidelines but that doesn't matter? That seems weak.

cwyers 8y ago

You 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 8y 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 8y ago
You 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.
- zeusk 8y ago
  Guidelines and base severity levels only specify a maximum sentence, with counterfeit goods crossing state and national boundaries 15 months is completely appropriate.
  - nebulous1 8y ago
    Wait, now your're saying that the value of the goods changes the sentencing guidelines but that doesn't matter? That seems weak.