Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday April 29 2018, @10:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the another-life-ruined dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by pendorbound on Monday April 30 2018, @02:45PM

    by pendorbound (2688) on Monday April 30 2018, @02:45PM (#673748) Homepage

    You're thinking a "shareware" type license. Those tend to limit your charging a "reasonable fee" for the physical duplication & distribution. GPL has always been about access to the source more than the physical media. If I sell or give you a copy of GPL software at any price, I must also make the source code available to you. By extension, if I charge an exorbitant price for the binary, I need only provide source to those who pay me my exorbitant price. (But I can't do anything to prevent them from in turn giving it away for free.)

    The only place where reasonable fee enters into GPL is a throwback to when source might be distributed separately from object code, IE because it wouldn't all fit on the same floppy disk. In that case, charging "a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source" was tacitly acceptable to get the rest of the disks, though I never saw a case of it being used. A link to web server was plenty, even when web access wasn't necessarily ubiquitous.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3