> He wasn't actually convicted of distributing software illegally
> He was convicted of counterfeiting and copyright infringement
"Copyright infringement" here implies "distributing software illegally". Licenses are not "works" and thus cannot be copyrighted. Trademarks cannot be copyrighted and trademark infringement is not copyright infringement.
> and the arguments for the cost of the licenses is moot
Copyright infringement by itself doesn't carry the sentence he was given. In copyright infringement cases, damages are calculated based on cost, loss-of-revenue etc. to the copyright holder.
From the very article you reference: "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." (emphasis mine).
The entire point is that his disks had "zero or near zero" value to the copyright holder since they did not contain any licenses, and thus his sentence is unfair.
I think the sentencing is incredibly harsh and unfair. To their credit, Microsoft stepped in and corrected the Government on the valuation of the media otherwise he might potentially be facing worse fines or time.
As I said elsewhere, he should have been given the option to destroy the media and eat the cost.
What I object to is that the WP has framed Lundgren as having not done anything wrong and everyone is cursing Microsoft who is in the right.
> "Copyright infringement" here implies "distributing software illegally". Licenses are not "works" and thus cannot be copyrighted. Trademarks cannot be copyrighted and trademark infringement is not copyright infringement.
That's incorrect. A logo can be both Trademarked and Copyrighted.
> The entire point is that his disks had "zero or near zero" value to the copyright holder since they did not contain any licenses, and thus his sentence is unfair.
You're stating as fact the testimony of a witness, Glenn Weadock, and his entire testimony was ultimately dismissed.
> The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony.
You're also not providing context around that quote to misrepresent it. Weadock was asked "In your opinion, without a code, either product key or COA [Certificate of Authenticity], what is the value of these reinstallation disks?"
That doesn't answer the question of if the disks have value with a code, or if the license is valid for the hardware which they're being used.
> Is that sufficient legal basis for the sentence?
Perhaps. I was asking why he went to the extra effort of making the disk look like an official restore disk from Dell instead of just scribbling "Eric's super wiz bang restore disc on it"?
> He was convicted of counterfeiting and copyright infringement
"Copyright infringement" here implies "distributing software illegally". Licenses are not "works" and thus cannot be copyrighted. Trademarks cannot be copyrighted and trademark infringement is not copyright infringement.
> and the arguments for the cost of the licenses is moot
Copyright infringement by itself doesn't carry the sentence he was given. In copyright infringement cases, damages are calculated based on cost, loss-of-revenue etc. to the copyright holder.
From the very article you reference: "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." (emphasis mine).
The entire point is that his disks had "zero or near zero" value to the copyright holder since they did not contain any licenses, and thus his sentence is unfair.
----
> So why didn't he?
Is that sufficient legal basis for the sentence?