"“These sales of counterfeit operating systems,” Microsoft lawyer Bonnie MacNaughton wrote to the judge, “displaced Microsoft’s potential sales of genuine operating systems.” But Lundgren’s disks had no licenses and were intended for computers that already had licenses."
and even worse,
"Hurley decided Lundgren’s 28,000 restore disks had a value of $700,000, and that dollar amount qualified Lundgren for a 15-month term and a $50,000 fine. The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony."
Weadock was an expert witness (for the government no less) in a Microsoft antitrust case. When asked what the value of the restore disk was, he responded with zero, or near zero. The prosecutors were initially looking for $299 a disk -- the value of a full license.
This is the most egregious case of a judge ruling on something he or she does not understand I've seen in a while. This is an item Microsoft gives away for free to anyone with an internet connection, all this guy was trying to do was sell them for $0.25 to cover the cost of a disk and make it easier for people to fix their broken computers (allegedly).
I dont quite understand the basic legal details behind this.
Say I buy a computer with windows pre-installed that means the OS license cost is bundled in to the price of the machine.
Say I have a computer without windows, or maybe an older cheaper version of windows. Is it correct that these restore disks arent a utility to get a free new copy of windows?
Most restore disks I've used from OEMs have an OEM Key hardcoded on the disk so the user doesn't have to type in the license key on the side of their machine. These Restore Disks are permitted if the OEM is a Licensed Distributor, Lundgren was not a licensed distributor.
The ISO files that Microsoft distributes require the user to input a key.
His whole argument is questionable:
He is trying to reduce e-waste by manufacturing discs, which he says people lose or throw away, and then selling those disks to the very people who lost or threw away their disc originally?
He says the discs are used by people who feel comfortable restoring a restore crashed or wiped machines but who don't or can't create the restore media themselves. Microsoft's media creation tool is dead simple, you run it and tell it where to create the media.
This is one of the most unabashedly sinister first-world articles I've read in a while.
Microsoft's argument hinges on two damages: Either, they didn't get to charge a convenience fee to customers, or they were losing revenue by people unexpectedly extending the life of their computers.
Foolish judges and evil lawyers putting a decent person away for 13 months.
No, this is an unabashedly sinister misinformation campaign by someone who didn't read the article or understand what this guy was doing.
He wasn't distributing restore disks with refurbished PCs.
He manufactured 28000 Restore Disks containing Microsoft Windows and was selling them. He justified his actions by saying they were only to be used on licensed machines. That's like me selling a backup copy of your Book and "you're only allowed to read this if you bought the book legitimately."
"Unfortunately, in what seems to have been a huge mistake, the disks had “labels nearly identical to the discs provided by Dell for its computers and had the Windows and Dell logos,” the Times wrote. As a result, Lundgren pleaded guilty to two of 21 charges, conspiracy and copyright infringement. He told the paper, “If I had just written ‘Eric’s Restore Disc’ on there, it would have been fine.”
Everybody is reading this wrong, which isn't a huge surprise because the Post seems to have nobody on hand who understands the facts of the case and relied on an interview with Lundgren heavily. He was not providing people with restore media they could use to fix their own machines. He was taking the restore media, burning it onto discs _with official Microsoft and Dell logos on them_ and then _selling them to computer refurbishers who would then include them with PCs they were selling._ In other words, people were buying PCs with these counterfeit restore discs passed off as actual Dell/Microsoft product. Yes, the media only works with a valid Windows license on the machine already, but reselling the PC like this with the counterfeit restore media likely voids that Windows license agreement. Lundgren is far less innocent than the Washington Post article implies.
> restore media likely voids that Windows license agreement.
I've bought plenty of Microsoft media in my lifetime. They will tell you the only thing that matters is the COA. If the COA came with the computer the license is still valid. He wasn't selling discs with counterfit COAs on them he was selling recycled restore disks to go with computers that already had a valid COA.
So unless there is something else in the ruling, I don't know child porn on the restore discs, the author has this story exactly right.
I don't know. It doesn't seem like he was charged with trademark infringement.
Further, the key point of this decision seems to be the value of each disk: Several hundreds of dollers, for a new retail licensed copy of Windows; $25, the price MS apparently charges for a restore disk and a OS license; or the price of a blank disk, plus the time it takes to download from MS and burn it.
I don't know what ticks other people off but the problem I have with this is not with the sentencing, but the fact that Microsoft decided it had nothing better to do than go after a guy who was actually trying to do some good by promoting recycling. It's not like we have an oversupply of that in this world.
I think it needs rephrasing. There's a lot that can be argued when you phrase it as "counterfeit restore discs", but it's open-and-shut trademark infringement. I know that's not what Microsoft was arguing, but in reality that's closer to what the judge ended up going with when you account for the reduced "cost" per disc.
Like he said in his defense, if he had labeled it "Eric's Restore Disc" instead of putting the Dell and Windows logo on it, he probably would have skirted any real repercussions.
he claims it was simply the online, freely downloadable image.
the fact he sold to resellers make it even less shady. he sold a service to the resellers? or saved users time/bandwidth/trouble of burning image on botable cd?
any way you try to spin this will still go against comon sense the whatever spirit of the laws that are not "license to sue anything under the sun, because IP"
>Lundgren objected to the PSR infringement amount. He argued that the Sentencing Guidelines required the court to use an infringement amount of about $4 per disk, which was the price for which Lundgren and Wolff were selling their copies.
That's a different number than the article claims.
How are the disks counterfeit?
As far as I understand they are functioning exactly like the 'official' disks.
Etching the brand on them makes them more easily recognizable, as to what purpose they serve. There is no technical difference between the 'original' disk and the ones this person manufactured, so there is no possible intent to fool anyone.
Nobody 'owns' a name or a logo. Intellectual property is impossible. Sending someone who hasn't stolen anything nor damaged anyone else's person or property, that is a crime.
Reading the court documents, the conclusion is that the guy is shady and the journalist and the newspaper are borderline lying.
The correct headline is:
"E-waste recycler loses appeal on 28,000 counterfeit windows installation disks, must serve prison term"
>The sentencing judge determined that the appropriate infringement value was the value of the infringed discs to small registered refurbishers: $25. The court found credible the government expert’s testimony that he was able to use the infringing discs to install functioning Microsoft software
So there were 28,000 discs with Microsoft and Dell logos which can be used to to install functioning Microsoft software
That's a different picture than the one painted by the article.
>In particular, the court noted that it did not find it
reasonable to believe that Lundgren and his codefendant had spent at least around $80,000 to create discs that had no value. Using the $25 infringement amount, Lundgren’s guideline range was 37 to 46 months imprisonment. The court
sentenced Lundgren to 15-months imprisonment
> there were 28,000 discs with Microsoft and Dell logos which can be used to to install functioning Microsoft software
I thought those discs could only “install functioning Microsoft software” if provided with a valid license key, a key Lundgren didn’t provide nor purport to provide. The “$25 infringement amount” seems like a bad comparison since those disks include a license key. Lundgren’s did not.
It seems, according to others' comments, that the "functioning MSFT software" is the Windows preinstall environment, that means people can start installing re-windows, but it still asks for a license.
That said, I don't see what was the operation. How he created the disks, who are the customers, are there receipts, etc?
Sounds like this guy made a really bad decision in putting the Windows and Dell logos on the disks, and then selling them (albeit for $0.25, which would seem to just barely cover the cost of production.) But that bad decision pales in comparison to the court's decision to value at $25 what Microsoft was giving away for free. If anything, he was saving them a significant amount of bandwidth.
“One of his projects was to manufacture thousands of ‘restore disks,’ usually supplied by computer-makers as a way for users to restore Windows to a hard drive if it crashes or must be wiped. The disks can be used only on a computer that already has a license for the Windows operating system, and the license transfers with the computer for its full life span. But computer owners often lose or throw out the disks, and though the operating system can be downloaded free on a licensed computer, Lundgren realized that many people didn’t feel competent to do that, and were simply throwing out their computers and buying new ones.
Lundgren had 28,000 of the disks made and shipped to a broker in Florida. Their plan was to sell the disks to computer refurbishing shops for about 25 cents apiece, so the refurbishers could provide the disks to used-computer buyers and wouldn’t have to take the time to create the disks themselves.
...
Eventually, the Florida broker, Robert Wolff, called Lundgren and offered to buy the disks himself as part of a government sting, Lundgren said. Wolff sent Lundgren $3,400, and the conspiracy was cemented. Both were indicted on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and criminal copyright infringement.”
This should not result in jail time. Is Florida really so free of violent crime and other more serious offenses that this case is a priority for federal prosecutors?
Not speaking about this case specifically, but the existence of other more serious and/or violent crimes does not negate the impact of small crimes. You can't just say "yeah well there's a lot of unsolved murders so what about those?" as some sort of indictment against police officers enforcing laws.
>In particular, the court noted that it did not find it
reasonable to believe that Lundgren and his codefendant had spent at least around $80,000 to create discs that had no value.
Since the idea that they had "no value" was not accepted and since the CD's had actually the MS and Dell logo's the Law shifts the value (and thus the sentencing) from the value of the "infringing" good to the value of the "infringed" one.
All in all, it seems to me more like a case of "counterfeit Gucci bags" than a purely unauthorized software redistribution related one ...
EDIT: the last sentence above was meant as:
All in all, it seems to me that the Courts treated it more like a case of "counterfeit Gucci bags" than a purely unauthorized software redistribution related one ...
I'm in two minds over this. First, it's ridiculous that someone is being jailed for 15 months for trying to make it easier to keep using older PCs and reducing waste.
On the other hand that's the risk one takes when dabbling in the world of proprietary software. Where discouraging people from upgrading is seen as a threat to revenue and is attacked accordingly.
Had he printed 34,000 Linux disks we'd never have had this case and sentence, but then perhaps no one would have used those old PCs. It seems that someone has to lose.
My first response was "he should have used linux", but I came to a similar conclusion as you. People are scared of linux, despite it now being almost as easy as Windows to install/use for typical usage.
E-waste is the result of computer transitioning from the role of "tool" to role of "disposable consumer good". The effort to provide people with the ability to easily repair their machines to a familiar state (being Windows), to me, seems the most effective way to combat e-waste.
I'm not sure how this leads to being "in two minds over this" - the fact that this is an expected or accepted result for someone dabbling in the world of proprietary software, to me, shows that there is something fundamentally broken about our modern tech industry.
This is ridiculous. This should be a civil case at most. We are entering into a dangerous era for our own selves when we allow this sort of punishment for software issues.
Additionally, this guy recycles 41 million pounds of e-waste a year. He should be celebrated. As a result of that, I can only imagine his larger clients may have to drop the use of the services of his company. Apparently, we don't care, and many comments online are philosophic in tone.
Even if the strategy were misguided, this outcome is absurd.
That Microsoft would so vigorously pursue this guy has rekindled my dislike for the company. They almost seemed to be on a turnaround path with developers with a cool editor and a new approach. This shows that they and their products are to be avoided at all cost as before.
All I can say is that, as developers, we need to work to not embrace Microsoft as they try to restore their relationship with us. And if you work there, well, what can I say... you should speak up about this or leave for more fair waters.
One of the phrases I keep from this article is: “I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was”.
I remember listening to Steve Gibson (GRC), on SecurityNow podcast, saying that this is the exact reason why he is not willing to testify to a Court of Law any more. Having testified in court for some cases as "specialist" it is (almost always) needed to find metaphors and analogies on anything-technology. Some judges and lawyers are educated but twisting the meaning of something (misinterpreting the truth) is often the case.
it is sad and amusing that at least three comments on this thread point out that the wapo article is substantially incomplete.
From the original LaTimes article:
"In 2013, federal authorities intercepted shipments of 28,000 restore discs that Lundgren had manufactured in China and sent to his sales partner in Florida. The discs had labels nearly identical to the discs provided by Dell for its computers and had the Windows and Dell logos."
Oh. Well that changes things substantially - copyright infringement on discs created in China in bulk looks a bit fishy and more malicious than the wapo points out.
What if the discs were rooted?
What if their intent was to charge the other recyclers $10 a pop vs the $25 msft charged for the same thing?
I bet all those things were discussed in the courtroom and I'd love to see a really good source to understand this case vs watching the media try to wind up the pitchfork brigade as usual.
> What if their intent was to charge the other recyclers $10 a pop vs the $25 msft charged for the same thing?
Not what was happening at all.
MS charge Dell et al $25 for a copy of Windows Home OEM, complete with certificate of authenticity sticker and new licence number.
"a Microsoft letter to Hurley and a Microsoft expert witness had reduced the value of the disks to $25 apiece, stating that was what Microsoft charged refurbishers for such disks. But both the letter and the expert were pricing a disk that came with a Microsoft license"
He was re-creating a restore disk that only works when associated with the already existing, and still valid, licence.
This is just shameful prosecution of law for the sake of law and not whether it's appropriate. Even the judge recognizes the greater good that was at play and the non-malicious intent.
It boggles my mind that some DA put the effort in to this case.
Can’t blame this on Microsoft. Legal department probably said “these disks look visually similar to Dell disks, therefore we must press charges or everyone will start stamping out lookalike CDs and they’ll be able to get away with it by pointing to us not pressing charges here”. Blame the legal system, not Microsoft. All companies are under such obligations to not dilute their IP.
Could Microsoft not have pursued a cease-and-desist, rather than penalties of $299 (original prosecution) and jail time, if this had truly been their intent?
Doesn't a restore disk contain binaries from the operating system? So he's distributing somebody else's work, with their logo on it. However well-intentioned, its pretty dodgy. No matter what Microsoft does with those binaries, they weren't his to resell?
So, the price MS paid to have him jailed was less than the cost they would incur if people used those discs to restore their machines instead of buying new ones.
[+] [-] Hasz|8 years ago|reply
"“These sales of counterfeit operating systems,” Microsoft lawyer Bonnie MacNaughton wrote to the judge, “displaced Microsoft’s potential sales of genuine operating systems.” But Lundgren’s disks had no licenses and were intended for computers that already had licenses."
and even worse,
"Hurley decided Lundgren’s 28,000 restore disks had a value of $700,000, and that dollar amount qualified Lundgren for a 15-month term and a $50,000 fine. The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony."
Weadock was an expert witness (for the government no less) in a Microsoft antitrust case. When asked what the value of the restore disk was, he responded with zero, or near zero. The prosecutors were initially looking for $299 a disk -- the value of a full license.
This is the most egregious case of a judge ruling on something he or she does not understand I've seen in a while. This is an item Microsoft gives away for free to anyone with an internet connection, all this guy was trying to do was sell them for $0.25 to cover the cost of a disk and make it easier for people to fix their broken computers (allegedly).
[+] [-] pweissbrod|8 years ago|reply
Say I buy a computer with windows pre-installed that means the OS license cost is bundled in to the price of the machine.
Say I have a computer without windows, or maybe an older cheaper version of windows. Is it correct that these restore disks arent a utility to get a free new copy of windows?
Just trying to understand
[+] [-] cptskippy|8 years ago|reply
Most restore disks I've used from OEMs have an OEM Key hardcoded on the disk so the user doesn't have to type in the license key on the side of their machine. These Restore Disks are permitted if the OEM is a Licensed Distributor, Lundgren was not a licensed distributor.
The ISO files that Microsoft distributes require the user to input a key.
His whole argument is questionable:
He is trying to reduce e-waste by manufacturing discs, which he says people lose or throw away, and then selling those disks to the very people who lost or threw away their disc originally?
He says the discs are used by people who feel comfortable restoring a restore crashed or wiped machines but who don't or can't create the restore media themselves. Microsoft's media creation tool is dead simple, you run it and tell it where to create the media.
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|8 years ago|reply
Don't ever look into precedent on cases involving firearms, marijuana, or encryption then :)
[+] [-] unethical_ban|8 years ago|reply
Microsoft's argument hinges on two damages: Either, they didn't get to charge a convenience fee to customers, or they were losing revenue by people unexpectedly extending the life of their computers.
Foolish judges and evil lawyers putting a decent person away for 13 months.
[+] [-] gambiting|8 years ago|reply
There's the problem.
[+] [-] cptskippy|8 years ago|reply
He wasn't distributing restore disks with refurbished PCs.
He manufactured 28000 Restore Disks containing Microsoft Windows and was selling them. He justified his actions by saying they were only to be used on licensed machines. That's like me selling a backup copy of your Book and "you're only allowed to read this if you bought the book legitimately."
[+] [-] vuln|8 years ago|reply
"Unfortunately, in what seems to have been a huge mistake, the disks had “labels nearly identical to the discs provided by Dell for its computers and had the Windows and Dell logos,” the Times wrote. As a result, Lundgren pleaded guilty to two of 21 charges, conspiracy and copyright infringement. He told the paper, “If I had just written ‘Eric’s Restore Disc’ on there, it would have been fine.”
[1]https://gizmodo.com/e-waste-innovator-will-go-to-jail-for-se...
[+] [-] GFischer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zelon88|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cwyers|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yardie|8 years ago|reply
I've bought plenty of Microsoft media in my lifetime. They will tell you the only thing that matters is the COA. If the COA came with the computer the license is still valid. He wasn't selling discs with counterfit COAs on them he was selling recycled restore disks to go with computers that already had a valid COA.
So unless there is something else in the ruling, I don't know child porn on the restore discs, the author has this story exactly right.
[+] [-] mcguire|8 years ago|reply
Further, the key point of this decision seems to be the value of each disk: Several hundreds of dollers, for a new retail licensed copy of Windows; $25, the price MS apparently charges for a restore disk and a OS license; or the price of a blank disk, plus the time it takes to download from MS and burn it.
[+] [-] mehrdadn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freehunter|8 years ago|reply
Like he said in his defense, if he had labeled it "Eric's Restore Disc" instead of putting the Dell and Windows logo on it, he probably would have skirted any real repercussions.
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|8 years ago|reply
Violating a software license agreement should not result in jail time, ever.
[+] [-] gcb0|8 years ago|reply
the fact he sold to resellers make it even less shady. he sold a service to the resellers? or saved users time/bandwidth/trouble of burning image on botable cd?
any way you try to spin this will still go against comon sense the whatever spirit of the laws that are not "license to sue anything under the sun, because IP"
[+] [-] ikeboy|8 years ago|reply
>Lundgren objected to the PSR infringement amount. He argued that the Sentencing Guidelines required the court to use an infringement amount of about $4 per disk, which was the price for which Lundgren and Wolff were selling their copies.
That's a different number than the article claims.
[+] [-] HIPisTheAnswer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucio|8 years ago|reply
The correct headline is: "E-waste recycler loses appeal on 28,000 counterfeit windows installation disks, must serve prison term"
>The sentencing judge determined that the appropriate infringement value was the value of the infringed discs to small registered refurbishers: $25. The court found credible the government expert’s testimony that he was able to use the infringing discs to install functioning Microsoft software
So there were 28,000 discs with Microsoft and Dell logos which can be used to to install functioning Microsoft software
That's a different picture than the one painted by the article.
>In particular, the court noted that it did not find it reasonable to believe that Lundgren and his codefendant had spent at least around $80,000 to create discs that had no value. Using the $25 infringement amount, Lundgren’s guideline range was 37 to 46 months imprisonment. The court sentenced Lundgren to 15-months imprisonment
https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2018/04/11/united_states_v...
Did the journalist read the court papers?
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|8 years ago|reply
I thought those discs could only “install functioning Microsoft software” if provided with a valid license key, a key Lundgren didn’t provide nor purport to provide. The “$25 infringement amount” seems like a bad comparison since those disks include a license key. Lundgren’s did not.
[+] [-] pas|8 years ago|reply
That said, I don't see what was the operation. How he created the disks, who are the customers, are there receipts, etc?
[+] [-] csdreamer7|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sevensor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treis|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|8 years ago|reply
Lundgren had 28,000 of the disks made and shipped to a broker in Florida. Their plan was to sell the disks to computer refurbishing shops for about 25 cents apiece, so the refurbishers could provide the disks to used-computer buyers and wouldn’t have to take the time to create the disks themselves.
...
Eventually, the Florida broker, Robert Wolff, called Lundgren and offered to buy the disks himself as part of a government sting, Lundgren said. Wolff sent Lundgren $3,400, and the conspiracy was cemented. Both were indicted on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and criminal copyright infringement.”
This should not result in jail time. Is Florida really so free of violent crime and other more serious offenses that this case is a priority for federal prosecutors?
[+] [-] pc86|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sailfast|8 years ago|reply
Here's the original request for appeal: https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/20/lundgrenappeal.pdf
[+] [-] jaclaz|8 years ago|reply
It seems to me like the key point is:
>In particular, the court noted that it did not find it reasonable to believe that Lundgren and his codefendant had spent at least around $80,000 to create discs that had no value.
Since the idea that they had "no value" was not accepted and since the CD's had actually the MS and Dell logo's the Law shifts the value (and thus the sentencing) from the value of the "infringing" good to the value of the "infringed" one.
All in all, it seems to me more like a case of "counterfeit Gucci bags" than a purely unauthorized software redistribution related one ...
EDIT: the last sentence above was meant as:
All in all, it seems to me that the Courts treated it more like a case of "counterfeit Gucci bags" than a purely unauthorized software redistribution related one ...
[+] [-] larkeith|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingaling|8 years ago|reply
On the other hand that's the risk one takes when dabbling in the world of proprietary software. Where discouraging people from upgrading is seen as a threat to revenue and is attacked accordingly.
Had he printed 34,000 Linux disks we'd never have had this case and sentence, but then perhaps no one would have used those old PCs. It seems that someone has to lose.
[+] [-] fuball63|8 years ago|reply
E-waste is the result of computer transitioning from the role of "tool" to role of "disposable consumer good". The effort to provide people with the ability to easily repair their machines to a familiar state (being Windows), to me, seems the most effective way to combat e-waste.
EDIT: added 'being Windows' to second paragraph
[+] [-] mannykannot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] larkeith|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ada1981|8 years ago|reply
I wonder if one could sell a USB configured to simply connect to the internet and download the software automatically.
[+] [-] joeevans1000|8 years ago|reply
Additionally, this guy recycles 41 million pounds of e-waste a year. He should be celebrated. As a result of that, I can only imagine his larger clients may have to drop the use of the services of his company. Apparently, we don't care, and many comments online are philosophic in tone.
Even if the strategy were misguided, this outcome is absurd.
That Microsoft would so vigorously pursue this guy has rekindled my dislike for the company. They almost seemed to be on a turnaround path with developers with a cool editor and a new approach. This shows that they and their products are to be avoided at all cost as before.
All I can say is that, as developers, we need to work to not embrace Microsoft as they try to restore their relationship with us. And if you work there, well, what can I say... you should speak up about this or leave for more fair waters.
[+] [-] HenryBemis|8 years ago|reply
I remember listening to Steve Gibson (GRC), on SecurityNow podcast, saying that this is the exact reason why he is not willing to testify to a Court of Law any more. Having testified in court for some cases as "specialist" it is (almost always) needed to find metaphors and analogies on anything-technology. Some judges and lawyers are educated but twisting the meaning of something (misinterpreting the truth) is often the case.
[+] [-] aresant|8 years ago|reply
From the original LaTimes article:
"In 2013, federal authorities intercepted shipments of 28,000 restore discs that Lundgren had manufactured in China and sent to his sales partner in Florida. The discs had labels nearly identical to the discs provided by Dell for its computers and had the Windows and Dell logos."
Oh. Well that changes things substantially - copyright infringement on discs created in China in bulk looks a bit fishy and more malicious than the wapo points out.
What if the discs were rooted?
What if their intent was to charge the other recyclers $10 a pop vs the $25 msft charged for the same thing?
I bet all those things were discussed in the courtroom and I'd love to see a really good source to understand this case vs watching the media try to wind up the pitchfork brigade as usual.
[+] [-] gowld|8 years ago|reply
They weren't. What if he murdered someone? He didn't.
> What if their intent was to charge the other recyclers $10 a pop vs the $25 msft charged for the same thing?
So? It's not a crime for Amazon to charge lower shipping than Newegg.
[+] [-] oldcynic|8 years ago|reply
Not what was happening at all.
MS charge Dell et al $25 for a copy of Windows Home OEM, complete with certificate of authenticity sticker and new licence number.
"a Microsoft letter to Hurley and a Microsoft expert witness had reduced the value of the disks to $25 apiece, stating that was what Microsoft charged refurbishers for such disks. But both the letter and the expert were pricing a disk that came with a Microsoft license"
He was re-creating a restore disk that only works when associated with the already existing, and still valid, licence.
[+] [-] staticautomatic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|8 years ago|reply
I feel like this is what pardons are for.
[+] [-] radiorental|8 years ago|reply
It boggles my mind that some DA put the effort in to this case.
[+] [-] emh68|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] larkeith|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everyone|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abtinf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|8 years ago|reply
"The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony. 'I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was,' Lundgren said."
[+] [-] analognoise|8 years ago|reply