SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Microsoft's corporate vice president of communication Frank X. Shaw has given the company's take on the conviction of Eric Lundgren for allegedly ordering unauthorized copies of Windows:
In the last few days there have been several stories about the sentencing of Eric Lundgren in a case that began in 2012, and we have received a number of questions about this case and our role in it. Although the case was not one that we brought, the questions raised recently have caused us to carefully review the publicly available court documents. All of the information we are sharing in this blog is drawn from those documents. We are sharing this information now and responding publicly because we believe both Microsoft's role in the case and the facts themselves are being misrepresented.
- Microsoft did not bring this case: U.S. Customs referred the case to federal prosecutors after intercepting shipments of counterfeit software imported from China by Mr. Lundgren.
- Lundgren established an elaborate counterfeit supply chain in China: Mr. Lundgren traveled extensively in China to set up a production line and designed counterfeit molds for Microsoft software in order to unlawfully manufacture counterfeit discs in significant volumes.
- Lundgren failed to stop after being warned: Mr. Lundgren was even warned by a customs seizure notice that his conduct was illegal and given the opportunity to stop before he was prosecuted.
- Lundgren pleaded guilty: The counterfeit discs obtained by Mr. Lundgren were sold to refurbishers in the United States for his personal profit and Mr. Lundgren and his codefendant both pleaded guilty to federal felony crimes.
- Lundgren went to great lengths to mislead people: His own emails submitted as evidence in the case show the lengths to which Mr. Lundgren went in an attempt to make his counterfeit software look like genuine software. They also show him directing his co-defendant to find less discerning customers who would be more easily deceived if people objected to the counterfeits.
- Lundgren intended to profit from his actions: His own emails submitted as evidence before the court make clear that Mr. Lundgren's motivation was to sell counterfeit software to generate income for himself.
- Microsoft has a strong program to support legitimate refurbishers and recyclers: Our program supports hundreds of legitimate recyclers, while protecting customers.
TechCrunch calls Microsoft's blog post "spin" for misrepresenting recovery discs as equivalent to entire licensed operating systems, hyping the "elaborate counterfeit supply chain", etc. Frank Shaw also defends the company in the comments for that article.
Also at The Verge.
Previously: 'E-Waste' Recycling Innovator Faces Prison for Trying to Extend Life Span of PCs
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday April 30 2018, @01:00AM (1 child)
What a bunch of bulshit.
No, he didn't. Any OS installed from those recovery disk will not function for long without the activation, which requires a valid license.
Addressed above [soylentnews.org]. Yes, there is a valid need for those disks (as in "software stored on a material support rather than available only as download").
If it's not Microsoft's trademark that has been infringed, what standing had Microsoft in the entire bruhaha?
You mean trademark, methinks.
I don't see how the Dell's visual work on the disk can qualify as creative work... you know?... the "literary, artistic, or musical material" kind of stuff that copyright requires.
Except that is not the software that was sold, it was the service of putting that (otherwise freely available) software on a material support.
You (perhaps sincere) opinion, time will tell.
While true, this is irrelevant for the context in which the thing took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Tuesday May 01 2018, @03:30AM
No, the problem is simpler than that.
You need a license to do anything with software, including copying it and distributing it.
Just because Microsoft made the software available to download and use for free does not mean Microsoft provided a license to allow others to copy the software or distribute it.
There's a difference between someone hiring another person to download software and burn it onto a disc on their behalf, and someone distributing copies of the software on disc. You cannot wave your hands and and claim the latter is kind of like the former if you squint. Lundgren was quite clearly in the business of distributing software outside of the terms of the license and not offering a CD burning service, and good luck trying to find a jury that disagrees when all of the evidence is brought to court.
This is also why GPL is a better license than MIT in the spirit of software freedom, because guaranteeing distribution rights is important. (Of course, if you're looking to lock down software and make it proprietary, MIT is a lot better.)
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!