Slashdot Mirror
E-Waste Innovator Will Go To Jail For Making Windows Restore Disks That Only Worked With Valid Licenses (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: California man Eric Lundgren, an electronic waste entrepreneur who produced tens of thousands of Windows restore disks intended to extend the lifespan of aging computers, lost a federal appeals court case in Miami after it ruled "he had infringed Microsoft's products to the tune of $700,000," the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. Per the Post, the appeals court ruled Lundgren's original sentence of 15 months in prison and a $50,000 fine would stay, despite the software being freely available online and only compatible with valid Windows licenses: "The appeals court upheld a federal district judge's ruling that the disks made by Eric Lundgren to restore Microsoft operating systems had a value of $25 apiece, even though they could be downloaded free and could be used only on computers with a valid Microsoft license. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit initially granted Lundgren an emergency stay of his prison sentence, shortly before he was to surrender, but then affirmed his original 15-month sentence and $50,000 fine without hearing oral argument in a ruling issued April 11." All told, the court valued 28,000 restore disks he produced at $700,000, despite testimony from software expert Glenn Weadock that they were worth essentially zero.
.... but if you can download the ISO for free (if you have a valid license or sticker, like a Dell for instance) how is that depriving Microsoft of any modicum of revenue?
That's what I can't wrap my head around.
It may be that the value is in the license, but that doesn't change the way the actual laws work. The idea is in the word: "copyright" is a right to make copies. It doesn't matter whether money changed hands: Microsoft has a copyright on those bits, and he copied them without their permission, so legally, he violated their copyright.
Is it a jerk move on Microsoft's part, to prosecute this guy for helping people keep software working which they've already paid for? Sure, and they deserve to be publicly shamed for it.
But there's nothing wrong with this ruling from a legal perspective. Everyone benefits when the law is clear and applied consistently, and in this case it was. Remember that those same laws which allow Microsoft to prosecute a guy for copying "free" bits also allow people who write GPL software to prosecute companies for copying "free" bits without giving back their changes.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
That's because 99.9% of jury members aren't aware of jury nullification and the true power they wield. Trial lawyers definitely don't want juries to know about that right, either - especially prosecutors - because those jurors become wildcards. If the lawyers even get a hint of a juror knowing about it, they are thrown out of the jury pool during the selection process.
Ever seen a used PC with the orignal COA scratched off and replaced with a Microsoft Reseller Program COA? That's what this is all about. Microsoft wanted the license to only apply to first owner, but that got struck down in court. So then they strong-armed computer resellers into purchasing low-cost refurbished PC COAs with intimidation and implied threats. (pc shop i worked at didn't fall for it). Every PC this guy sold with the orginal COA was about $20 out of microsoft's pockets.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
I'm okay with that.
Jury nullification is, by necessity, a complete undermining of the legal and judicial process. It is essentially taking the Constitutional architecture for our three branches of government, throwing it out the window, and saying "this mob will rule today". To ask a jury to nullify a case is to declare no confidence in the duly-elected representatives, judges, or attorneys involved.
It is the ultimate power of the people, as the judicial equivalent of a nuclear weapon. There is no return, no appeal, and no way to fix the harm caused by a jury nullifying inappropriately. It is a power that should be used when there is no other option that aligns with America's founding principles. If an executive branch starts persecuting religious leaders, nullification would be appropriate. If people are being prosecuted simply for meeting each other, nullification is appropriate. If someone is being tried for their thoughts rather than their actions, nullification would be appropriate.
I, for one, can't trust that someone promoting nullification can actually respect the law or its application. In the public eye, it's become seen as a minor anarchy; just a way to escape consequences for crimes against acceptable targets. After all, who cares if it's Microsoft, or Disney, or Monsanto being harmed? How bad can it be to remove legal protection from groups or people we don't like, anyway?
Now in this case, Lundgren violated the letter, spirit, and intent of the law. There are other (legal) routes to accomplish what he tried to do. Just because we happen to agree with the cause he champions is no reason to tear down the pillars of justice. It's just not worth the high cost.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
It's almost as though copyright law is broken. Can I be paid for my labour of building a PC, installing Windows and then selling the PC? I don't have the "right" to distribute Windows.
I never doubted that this verdict was within the confines of the law. The question was should it be? I would say no.