4 ms·

This is probably where he went too far: Given these basic facts, Eric had the idea to take the freely available restore disc ISOs and have them professionally

This is probably where he went too far: Given these basic facts, Eric had the idea to take the freely available restore disc ISOs and have them professionally pressed to CDs. While he was at it he figured he might as well make them look like the real thing, and provided the Chinese company he was working with images of what the legitimate restore discs should look like. Right down to the company logos and copyright notices. This sounds a lot like copyright infringement. I know some intellectual property attorneys and if you asked them about this before you did it, they'd probably cringe and tell you to avoid doing something that appears you're using Microsoft's logos to make money.

hinkley 8y ago
Trademark infringement. If his discs are fine there’s no problem from the customers standpoint. If the manufacturer is accidentally injecting a Trojan onto the discs they press, now MS has a PR problem caused by someone who is using their trademarks without permission. I’m no fan of MS legal practices but he really fucked up and you have to defend your trademarks or you can lose them.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Microsoft didn't initiate any of this. US Customs officials went "That's weird, why are boxes of Microsoft/ Dell restore CDs coming from China to this random outfit?" and the answer of course was "You have just detected a counterfeiting operation, try to figure out who the principles are and imprison them so they can't do it again". Microsoft's first involvement was after Lundgren was arrested (maybe even after he was charged?) when the US government wanted to know what these things would be worth if they were real (Lundgren's lawyers told a court it should ask what fake ones are worth, which is zero of course, but that's not what the law says, nor does it make any sense) and to what extent they'd fool purchasers. It suits Lundgren to portray this as "Computer recycler jailed by Microsoft" rather than "Counterfeiter caught" and in the tech press it appears he has been at least partly successful. I presume it's hoped that this will influence the actual jail time. You don't actually have to defend trademarks. Corporations would _like_ you to help their Sales and Marketing divisions by treating their mark as special, and they will sometimes try to harass people into doing things the law doesn't require (US tech companies spent a few years trying to get UK magazines to write ® after the names of their products, the Editors of those magazines declined because there's no basis in law for such nonsense). Abandonment consists of not _using_ a mark, not of declining to chase each and every unauthorised use. For example if Apple decided today to stop selling the "iPod" and not use the mark in any other way (e.g. "iPhone with iPod features" or "Download iPod for your macOS today" or whatever) a court might eventually conclude that this mark was abandoned, and in say, 2060 if I sell the "iPod" bright orange sphere that plays Whale sounds, an Apple lawsuit insisting they still own the name "iPod" might fail due to abandonment. But if they don't sue a guy with a Geocities home page called "Gary's iPod" for eight years it does't magically mean now iPod isn't trademarked and anyone can use it.
  - hinkley 8y ago
    Yeah, I think you're right in this case, and a lot of us are assuming the details look like some other cases where the details were very different. But it does feel a bit like crocodile tears. Why did Customs seize the goods? Because they've been trained by industry (regulatory capture)? Or because it was the right thing to do? I think I'm on the fence still. But to reiterate, making a disc look exactly like the official one was a big mistake on his part. He should not have done that. I'd like to think that being more transparent would have kept him out of trouble.

hinkley 8y ago

Trademark infringement. If his discs are fine there’s no problem from the customers standpoint. If the manufacturer is accidentally injecting a Trojan onto the discs they press, now MS has a PR problem caused by someone who is using their trademarks without permission. I’m no fan of MS legal practices but he really fucked up and you have to defend your trademarks or you can lose them.

tialaramex 8y ago
Microsoft didn't initiate any of this. US Customs officials went "That's weird, why are boxes of Microsoft/ Dell restore CDs coming from China to this random outfit?" and the answer of course was "You have just detected a counterfeiting operation, try to figure out who the principles are and imprison them so they can't do it again". Microsoft's first involvement was after Lundgren was arrested (maybe even after he was charged?) when the US government wanted to know what these things would be worth if they were real (Lundgren's lawyers told a court it should ask what fake ones are worth, which is zero of course, but that's not what the law says, nor does it make any sense) and to what extent they'd fool purchasers. It suits Lundgren to portray this as "Computer recycler jailed by Microsoft" rather than "Counterfeiter caught" and in the tech press it appears he has been at least partly successful. I presume it's hoped that this will influence the actual jail time. You don't actually have to defend trademarks. Corporations would _like_ you to help their Sales and Marketing divisions by treating their mark as special, and they will sometimes try to harass people into doing things the law doesn't require (US tech companies spent a few years trying to get UK magazines to write ® after the names of their products, the Editors of those magazines declined because there's no basis in law for such nonsense). Abandonment consists of not _using_ a mark, not of declining to chase each and every unauthorised use. For example if Apple decided today to stop selling the "iPod" and not use the mark in any other way (e.g. "iPhone with iPod features" or "Download iPod for your macOS today" or whatever) a court might eventually conclude that this mark was abandoned, and in say, 2060 if I sell the "iPod" bright orange sphere that plays Whale sounds, an Apple lawsuit insisting they still own the name "iPod" might fail due to abandonment. But if they don't sue a guy with a Geocities home page called "Gary's iPod" for eight years it does't magically mean now iPod isn't trademarked and anyone can use it.
- hinkley 8y ago
  Yeah, I think you're right in this case, and a lot of us are assuming the details look like some other cases where the details were very different. But it does feel a bit like crocodile tears. Why did Customs seize the goods? Because they've been trained by industry (regulatory capture)? Or because it was the right thing to do? I think I'm on the fence still. But to reiterate, making a disc look exactly like the official one was a big mistake on his part. He should not have done that. I'd like to think that being more transparent would have kept him out of trouble.