4 ms·

So many in this case are missing the point. If Microsoft caught him violating their copyright, and it bothered Microsoft, Microsoft should have sued in civil c

So many in this case are missing the point. If Microsoft caught him violating their copyright, and it bothered Microsoft, Microsoft should have sued in civil court. That is the purpose of civil court- to penalize wrongdoing by companies. Happens all the time. But Microsoft was never going to recover anything in civil court. So Microsoft lied to the US government about the value of what was being "stolen", and got the US government to foot the bill of prosecuting the case. This is called a civil-criminal hybrid case. It should be civilly prosecuted, but the US government gets in cahoots with a corporation and the pair conspire to make it a criminal prosecution, which allows the corporation to de facto imprison any person it helps to convict. Microsoft was able to avoid the lion's share of the legal fees, and won't be responsible for any fees when and if the case is successfully appealed. You will, as a taxpayer, footing the DOJ's bill. Any restitution Mr. Lundgren pays will be far higher a return than Microsoft could have gained in a civil case. As for the investigating body within the government, it gets enriched through forfeiture. Everybody wins, except the small guy and the taxpayer. Mr. Lundgren might have been in a stronger position if he had not pled guilty to two of the counts. Whether to sign away your integrity for a potentially lighter sentence is a decision no one should have to make.

Voloskaya 9y ago
> So Microsoft lied to the US government about the value of what was being "stolen", and got the US government to foot the bill of prosecuting the case. Source for that? Microsoft is clearly denying this, so who is right?: > "Microsoft did not bring this case: U.S. Customs referred the case to federal prosecutors after intercepting shipments of counterfeit software imported from China by Mr. Lundgren." and > "Customs authorities referred the case to federal prosecutors. The United States Attorney’s Office in Miami pressed charges and Mr. Lundgren pleaded guilty. Microsoft was called as an expert witness toward the end of the legal proceedings. " From: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-facts-about-a-recent-counterfeiting-case-brought-by-the-u-s-government/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...
- mchannon 9y ago
  Source that Microsoft lied? Gov Exhibit 17. There are probably many more. There are about three or four lies on there, which anybody familiar with the computer recycling business can confirm. Microsoft had no potential sales of genuine operating systems through this conduct because any license these discs would have been useful for was affixed to the computer and not included with the counterfeit discs. Hence, the loss and restitution amount were falsely stated. As to the fanciful notion that Microsoft was somehow called in at the 11th hour, with zero involvement in the case prior to that moment, one would only need to talk to any attorney versed in criminal law to disabuse themselves of it. Prosecutors don't bring cases they aren't relatively certain they can win- that's why they have a 93+% win rate. That means contacting the "victim" from the get-go to make sure they're willing to cooperate and testify.
  - WalterGR 9y ago
    Source that Microsoft lied? Gov Exhibit 17. There are probably many more. I'm not finding this via Google searches... What incantation should I use? Which parts of the exhibit are you referring to? [edit: I did find this, which is from the defense. The defense doesn't claim that Microsoft stated that the value of each restore disk was $25. "The Government provided no proof of the price at which the Microsoft software was sold in any market without a license or product key. Indeed, the Court had no proof that Windows software was ever sold in any market at any price without a license or product key. Thus, the Court had no basis to determine the retail value of the infringed item, i.e., the Microsoft software without a license or product key. With no proof of the retail value of the infringed item, the Court was left to assume that the Windows software without a license and product key had the exact same retail value as an installation disc with Windows software, a license, and a product key sold to refurbishers. In concluding that the infringement value of the software was $25 - the price charged to refurbishers for an installation disc with copy of the Windows software together with a license and a product key – the Court apparently did so." https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/Lundgren-emergency-motion.pdf https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/wp-content/uploads/si... ] There are about three or four lies on there, which anybody familiar with the computer recycling business can confirm. For those of us who aren't familiar with the computer recycling business (myself included) could you confirm them? The rest of your comment is speculation.
emodendroket 9y ago
> That is the purpose of civil court- to penalize wrongdoing by companies. That's kind of a confused notion of the purpose of the distinction between civil and criminal court.s
pasbesoin 9y ago
There is a broader push to criminalize IP enforcement. Part of a very troubling trend. And who's it done for? Large corporations. Not the "little guy". Rent seekers, consolidating their monopolies.
otakucode 9y ago
Louis Rossman did an interview with Lundgren on his YouTube Channel. Lundgren is no hero. He was not just burning some recovery CDs. He was actively seeking to deceive, actively telling his customers (other PC recyclers) that he was selling them legitimate recovery CDs manufactured by Dell, Lenovo, etc. Microsoft did not go to the government. The government went to Microsoft. It called Microsoft people as expert witnesses. Microsoft did not claim the CDs Lundgren sold were worth $25. They said that they sell versions of Windows with licenses for refurbishers for $25, but don't sell license-free recovery CDs. The standard used to determine damages for counterfeit goods (which is what we're dealing with, not copyright infringement or trademark violation but counterfeit goods, no different than if he setup a production like to produce Prada bags and told people they were Prada bags) is NOT exact equivalence. It is substantial similarity. And the court, not Microsoft, looked at Lundgrens claim that he spent tens of thousands of dollars producing worthless CDs that he then expected to make a profit selling and saw that it was a nonsensical lie. The only other number the court had was the $25 one from Microsoft. Read the appellate courts ruling. It's not a difficult read. It's very clear.
- mchannon 9y ago
  +1 for mentioning the interview, but a link would've been helpful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7hnVYMoctM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7hnVYMoctM Microsoft did claim they were worth $20, according to Gov. Exhibit 17. Most of your argument is thus false. District and appellate judges don't always make the right decisions, but that's what rehearings and the Supreme Court are for.
  - WalterGR 9y ago
    Could you please link to a time code or mention which time to seek to? The video is 2 hours long. While I'm here, here are the popular discussions about this story from the last week: “Microsoft attempts to spin its role in counterfeiting case” - 195 points - 2 days ago - 144 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16946478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16946478 “Microsoft Convinces Judges to Jail Man for Copying Software It Gives Out Free” - 71 points - 3 days ago - 22 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16940722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16940722 “ ‘E-waste’ activist gets 15 months in prison for selling Windows restore disks” - 86 points - 4 days ago - 11 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16924587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16924587 “E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term” - 388 points - 5 days ago - 257 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921634

Voloskaya 9y ago

> So Microsoft lied to the US government about the value of what was being "stolen", and got the US government to foot the bill of prosecuting the case. Source for that? Microsoft is clearly denying this, so who is right?: > "Microsoft did not bring this case: U.S. Customs referred the case to federal prosecutors after intercepting shipments of counterfeit software imported from China by Mr. Lundgren." and > "Customs authorities referred the case to federal prosecutors. The United States Attorney’s Office in Miami pressed charges and Mr. Lundgren pleaded guilty. Microsoft was called as an expert witness toward the end of the legal proceedings. " From: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-facts-about-a-recent-counterfeiting-case-brought-by-the-u-s-government/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...

mchannon 9y ago
Source that Microsoft lied? Gov Exhibit 17. There are probably many more. There are about three or four lies on there, which anybody familiar with the computer recycling business can confirm. Microsoft had no potential sales of genuine operating systems through this conduct because any license these discs would have been useful for was affixed to the computer and not included with the counterfeit discs. Hence, the loss and restitution amount were falsely stated. As to the fanciful notion that Microsoft was somehow called in at the 11th hour, with zero involvement in the case prior to that moment, one would only need to talk to any attorney versed in criminal law to disabuse themselves of it. Prosecutors don't bring cases they aren't relatively certain they can win- that's why they have a 93+% win rate. That means contacting the "victim" from the get-go to make sure they're willing to cooperate and testify.
- WalterGR 9y ago
  Source that Microsoft lied? Gov Exhibit 17. There are probably many more. I'm not finding this via Google searches... What incantation should I use? Which parts of the exhibit are you referring to? [edit: I did find this, which is from the defense. The defense doesn't claim that Microsoft stated that the value of each restore disk was $25. "The Government provided no proof of the price at which the Microsoft software was sold in any market without a license or product key. Indeed, the Court had no proof that Windows software was ever sold in any market at any price without a license or product key. Thus, the Court had no basis to determine the retail value of the infringed item, i.e., the Microsoft software without a license or product key. With no proof of the retail value of the infringed item, the Court was left to assume that the Windows software without a license and product key had the exact same retail value as an installation disc with Windows software, a license, and a product key sold to refurbishers. In concluding that the infringement value of the software was $25 - the price charged to refurbishers for an installation disc with copy of the Windows software together with a license and a product key – the Court apparently did so." https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/Lundgren-emergency-motion.pdf https://resource-recycling.com/e-scrap/wp-content/uploads/si... ] There are about three or four lies on there, which anybody familiar with the computer recycling business can confirm. For those of us who aren't familiar with the computer recycling business (myself included) could you confirm them? The rest of your comment is speculation.

emodendroket 9y ago

> That is the purpose of civil court- to penalize wrongdoing by companies. That's kind of a confused notion of the purpose of the distinction between civil and criminal court.s

pasbesoin 9y ago

There is a broader push to criminalize IP enforcement. Part of a very troubling trend. And who's it done for? Large corporations. Not the "little guy". Rent seekers, consolidating their monopolies.

otakucode 9y ago

Louis Rossman did an interview with Lundgren on his YouTube Channel. Lundgren is no hero. He was not just burning some recovery CDs. He was actively seeking to deceive, actively telling his customers (other PC recyclers) that he was selling them legitimate recovery CDs manufactured by Dell, Lenovo, etc. Microsoft did not go to the government. The government went to Microsoft. It called Microsoft people as expert witnesses. Microsoft did not claim the CDs Lundgren sold were worth $25. They said that they sell versions of Windows with licenses for refurbishers for $25, but don't sell license-free recovery CDs. The standard used to determine damages for counterfeit goods (which is what we're dealing with, not copyright infringement or trademark violation but counterfeit goods, no different than if he setup a production like to produce Prada bags and told people they were Prada bags) is NOT exact equivalence. It is substantial similarity. And the court, not Microsoft, looked at Lundgrens claim that he spent tens of thousands of dollars producing worthless CDs that he then expected to make a profit selling and saw that it was a nonsensical lie. The only other number the court had was the $25 one from Microsoft. Read the appellate courts ruling. It's not a difficult read. It's very clear.

mchannon 9y ago
+1 for mentioning the interview, but a link would've been helpful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7hnVYMoctM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7hnVYMoctM Microsoft did claim they were worth $20, according to Gov. Exhibit 17. Most of your argument is thus false. District and appellate judges don't always make the right decisions, but that's what rehearings and the Supreme Court are for.
- WalterGR 9y ago
  Could you please link to a time code or mention which time to seek to? The video is 2 hours long. While I'm here, here are the popular discussions about this story from the last week: “Microsoft attempts to spin its role in counterfeiting case” - 195 points - 2 days ago - 144 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16946478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16946478 “Microsoft Convinces Judges to Jail Man for Copying Software It Gives Out Free” - 71 points - 3 days ago - 22 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16940722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16940722 “ ‘E-waste’ activist gets 15 months in prison for selling Windows restore disks” - 86 points - 4 days ago - 11 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16924587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16924587 “E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term” - 388 points - 5 days ago - 257 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921634