So many in this case are missing the point.<p>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.<p>But Microsoft was never going to recover anything in civil court.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
His punishment seems disproportionate and stupid (like, why are we spending money to lock him up instead of fining him more?); but he clearly intended to make disks that buyers would think were factory originals, and knew that he was breaking the law. From his email:<p>> I can look in to the missing boxes - Usually in my history - Customs just ships them to you 3 weeks later.<p>> If they call you - play stupid and just tell them that you ordered from an asset management overseas.<p>> Tell him that the product was guaranteed to be real and that you paid a very high price for it. Act upset as to why you had not received your product yet.<p>Obviously cherry-picked by the prosecutors; but there's a lot more, and it makes him look much worse than the press coverage does.<p><a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LUNDGREN6.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...</a><p>ETA: And why do the media keep repeating the $0.25/disk? There's a PO where he sold some for $3 or $4 each. Less than the stupid $25, but not charity.
The title on the original is "How Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away for free". Even that title is misleading, but the shortened title here is wrong because "Free Software" has a specific meaning.<p>Referring to Microsoft Windows as "free software" is just wrong. Microsoft Windows is not Free Software. Even if you leave out the caps intending to refer to price only, the title is wrong. Windows is not for free. You can only get unlicensed copies for free. Which is what the article is about.
Title is missleading:<p>"His actual crime, which he pleaded guilty to, was counterfeiting the packaging to make the discs pass for Dell-branded ones."<p>He misled his customers in order to make money.<p>This isnt really different than selling knock off gucci handbags. Sure they probably work & look the same, but it does damage to the legitimate brand.
Look, I'm not saying that this is right or not, but this article does a horrible job of arguing its point, and it's completely lacking any understanding of the law.<p>"Furthermore: People weren’t buying software, let alone “counterfeit software.” The discs in question are at best “unauthorized” copies of software provided for free by Microsoft, not really a term that carries a lot of legal or even rhetorical weight."<p>I can even... just... What does that even mean? What does 'buying the software' mean vs 'buying the licence'? This author clearly has no idea about copyright law at all, and has constructed a complete alternative narrative in his head, which he is then using to attack a straw man.<p>A 'licence' is a contract between two parties, in which one party (usually) agrees to pay a certain amount of money (the 'licence fee') and where the other party then lets the one paying the fee make a copy of some work to use it. A copyright holder, and he/she alone, has the right to make copies or authorize others to make copies of a work. So 'unauthorized copies' <i>are the very definition</i> of copyright infringement. What does the author mean 'not really a term that carries a lot of legal weight'? This whole artificial 'Microsoft makes it available for free online and you're not really buying that, you're buying the licence' is complete jibber jabber - sure you can download it, but the terms put very clear restrictions on who can download it, why and what can be done with it after.<p>And yes there's all sorts of confounding factors - how much did the guy charge, and this is a criminal case and not a civil one, and there is the Dell branding thing, and there is intent, on and on. But my point is: this author shouldn't write about things he clearly has absolutely no clue about.
This article is quite disingenuous.<p>The lie is in the first sentence: "...15 months in prison for selling discs that let people reinstall Windows on <i>licensed machines</i>.<p>(emphasis mine)<p>The prosecution successfully argued the machines these discs were meant to be sold with did not have valid Windows licenses (and that these discs were part of an effort to avoid purchasing them).<p>You will want to find another article on this case to read about it since this dances fast to avoid addressing it.<p>We have a crime, a guilty plea, and sentencing. And a careful review in the appeal. Hard to see what's wrong here.
If Lundgren was counterfeiting software that you could "download for free", then why did he and Bob Wolff go around buying genuine Dell recovery discs in order to produce their own copies?
15 months sounds excessive, but the fact the software could be downloaded by customers for free is not a mitigating factor in a guy attempting to make a profit making it look as much as possible like a paid for product sold by Dell/Microsoft...
Did he or did he not seek to make a meaningful profit from this activity? I can't see information on that in the article. Also did he use the downloadable file or did he actually burn from an existing DELL disc? I think there would be software differences potentially there right? I got a reinstallation media sent out from DELL and it definitely seemed customised.
Just spotted this has been discussed before on HN, complete with comments from the Techcrunch author<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16946478&goto=news" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16946478&goto=news</a>
The other side of the case, which contains a lot of detail not mentioned here:<p><a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-facts-about-a-recent-counterfeiting-case-brought-by-the-u-s-government/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...</a>
I stopped buying windows and the MS Office suite years ago when Microsoft clearly stopped caring about its consumer base. As for this case, its unfair to Lundgren - should have had better lawyers - Microsoft is simply taking advantage of the best legal system money can buy to keep its shareholders happy