3 ms·

That's really the kicker here. He was trying as hard as possible to make these look official. Had he just kept a folder of ISOs on his computer at work, and b

by RIMR 8y ago

That's really the kicker here. He was trying as hard as possible to make these look official. Had he just kept a folder of ISOs on his computer at work, and burned images on-demand for customers, and just wrote the OS version on the disk, he probably wouldn't have had a problem. Instead, he had a foreign company burn the discs en-masse on consumer-grade CDs, and slapped trademarks on the packaging that he didn't have the rights to. I think there's room for nuance in this case, and that the penalties are outrageous, but this guy isn't innocent. He was planning on turning a profit by selling another company's IP, and using their trademarks on the packaging.

tialaramex 8y ago
Not only would he not have "had a problem" if he'd proceeded as you describe he also wouldn't have had a lucrative counterfeiting business, which was in fact the point. I've seen this same thing done for cases where I was closer to the facts. The government's lawyers don't care about your sob story. So when you assert in court "I needed to feed sixteen orphans so the Magnifiton bowl was exactly what I needed. I know now that it wasn't right to take it, but I felt at the time it was the only way." ... they don't bother telling the court there weren't actually any orphans and the bowl isn't really suitable for serving food. The charge was burglary - breaking into the museum and stealing this valuable bowl, which they've already proved you did, why should they care about your ludicrous sob story? But out of court your lawyers can portray this case as an outrage - you were only trying to help starving orphans, how heartless is this government for punishing you in this way? When Lundgren is confronted about the evidence that he's simply a counterfeiter we're once again on familiar turf. He's been framed, the emails are fake, everything is being distorted to make him look like the bad guy when he's actually innocent. Blah blah blah.

by RIMR 8y ago

tialaramex 8y ago

Not only would he not have "had a problem" if he'd proceeded as you describe he also wouldn't have had a lucrative counterfeiting business, which was in fact the point. I've seen this same thing done for cases where I was closer to the facts. The government's lawyers don't care about your sob story. So when you assert in court "I needed to feed sixteen orphans so the Magnifiton bowl was exactly what I needed. I know now that it wasn't right to take it, but I felt at the time it was the only way." ... they don't bother telling the court there weren't actually any orphans and the bowl isn't really suitable for serving food. The charge was burglary - breaking into the museum and stealing this valuable bowl, which they've already proved you did, why should they care about your ludicrous sob story? But out of court your lawyers can portray this case as an outrage - you were only trying to help starving orphans, how heartless is this government for punishing you in this way? When Lundgren is confronted about the evidence that he's simply a counterfeiter we're once again on familiar turf. He's been framed, the emails are fake, everything is being distorted to make him look like the bad guy when he's actually innocent. Blah blah blah.