Man gets 15 months in prison for selling "worthless" Windows restore disks

[mr moose]

Just now, Drak3 said:

The resale of restoration media is allowed by Microsoft.

Citation?

[AshleyAshes]

Can someone explain to me what was actually ON these restoration discs?  From the articles it sounds like they'd be universally compatible with any Windows PC so long as the original Windows key was available to the person servicing it.  Were they JUST Windows install discs?  Where they specially packaged all in one restore deals?  How were they in any way something that ANY repair shop couldn't just have on hand by their own accord with either the Media Creation Tool or commonly available boot images?

[ATFink]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Only if the oil is patented and you are making a direct copy of that patented oil and selling it to mechanics without license from the manufacturer.  Also Potential sales are reasonable assumed to be like for like in these cases.  You can argue it was a pointless activity but the law is black and white on that.  You just can't legally use IP without a license and you certainly can't sell products that use it without a license.

I suppose much of my beef comes from the fact that I am strongly opposed to the current state of copyright law. There should be copyright law, but the current form of it is pathetic. People should not be allowed to copyright chemical formulas, and often time copyright law is used to bully competition or make a quick buck rather than strictly differentiated content. Using a tool that does not work unless a previous sale to Microsoft has occurred falls into the second categorysince "displacing potential sales" does potentially compete against Microsoft's revenue.

 

Seriously, what's there to stop some company from copyrighting a bunch of ingredients to a bunch of recipes and the recipes themselves and then telling other companies like blue apron or big box meals like Hungry Man they can't sell their food without a royalty since said company has the intellectual property over the meals? Crap like this is why patent sharks exist.

[ATFink]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also Potential sales are reasonable assumed to be like for like in these cases. 

Explain. I don't not see how a "potential sale" is justifiable statistic. A market is supposed to have competition. There should be no guarantee of any sale unless a contract between a buyer and a seller make it so.

 

Edit:

As I stated earlier, how does Microsoft know they would would have received new sales from the people who had their computers cleaned? What stops all of them from buying Apple computers?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, ATFink said:

I suppose much of my beef comes from the fact that I am strongly opposed to the current state of copyright law. There should be copyright law, but the current form of it is pathetic. People should not be allowed to copyright chemical formulas, and often time copyright law is used to bully competition or make a quick buck rather than strictly differentiated content. Using a tool that does not work unless a previous sale to Microsoft falls into the later category in my opinion since "displacing potential sales" does potentially compete against Microsoft's revenue.

I get the frustration, but Copyright law is very complicated and there is a lot that it does to maintain the economy and advancement of technology.  If we start putting holes in it for all the small stuff (like this which was unnecessary from the beginning so why did he even do it?) then we risk destabilizing the whole system.

 

4 minutes ago, ATFink said:

Seriously, what's there to stop some company from copyrighting a bunch of ingredients to a bunch of recipes and the recipes themselves and then telling other companies like blue apron or big box meals like Hungry Man they can't sell their food without a royalty since said company has the intellectual property over the meals? Crap like this is why patent sharks exist.

Copyright law itself stops people from patenting existing things.     The only part of the patent system I hate are those who buy IP and then sit on it suing people. I think IP should be restricted to those who actually manufacturer it. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, ATFink said:

Explain. I don't not see how a "potential sale" is justifiable statistic. A market is supposed to have competition. There should be no guarantee of any sale unless a contract between a buyer and a seller make it so.

It's not about guarantee's though.  When it comes to laws like IP and copyright there is a large degree of what they call "reasonable expectation" because no one is 100% predictable.  If we look at the statistics of computer sales we can see that most people when they upgrade will upgrade like for like, they go from a mac to another mac, or from windows to another windows.    Only small percentages of people move from one to another and usually there is a reason beyond hardware failure that causes that change.  Therefore it is a reasonable expectation that when a person comes to upgrade due to aging hardware or use that majority will upgrade to a new version of the same OS.

[ATFink]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I get the frustration, but Copyright law is very complicated and there is a lot that it does to maintain the economy and advancement of technology.  If we start putting holes in it for all the small stuff (like this which was unnecessary from the beginning so why did he even do it?) then we risk destabilizing the whole system.

I understand that laws aren't perfect, but IP laws seem to be particularly problematic. I suppose I should refrain from commenting on the matter unless I knew more about copyright law. I definitely am no expert and I'm no lawyer, so I claim no formal knowledge about specific IP law, but that doesn't change the fact that a man is being jailed for a victim-less action.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, RoyalGamer1 said:

because he infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property. he didn't make them so he has no right to re sell them. just like how little candy bars in big bags say not for individual resale on them. its just illegal to do it. They can so they did. they probably like the idea of selling them to stores for money and doest want him to so they can. or they just dont want him getting money off something he didn't personally make. in the end who cares. when you try to do get rich fast schemes this is always a possible outcome. 

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft had a b.s. argument about damages. They said it was worth 700000. Based on each one if those disks being worth the price of a Windows license which is dumb af. If they sold them for 25 cents each and they were evaluated at being 100 dollars each then they got so screwed. That's 400 times the amount they actually grossed not to mention the cost of they paid to make them. They made less than 1500 dollars yet they say they sold something worth more than half a million dollars and got a fine of 50000 and a 15 month prison sentence. I mean if what they did was wrong then they should be punished but not the same as someone who stole 700000 dollars worth of goods. 

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, ATFink said:

I understand that laws aren't perfect, but IP laws seem to be particularly problematic. I suppose I should refrain from commenting on the matter unless I knew more about copyright law. I definitely am no expert and I'm no lawyer, so I claim no formal knowledge about specific IP law, but that doesn't change the fact that a man is being jailed for a victim-less crime.

I'm no lawyer either, but I have been following IP law and Corporate affairs/politics (they all share a component that deeply effects society and culture) for about 30 years now.   I think the problem with today's narratives (especially on the internet) is that we get hung up on the "victimless" bit.   Being victimless doesn't invalidate the law, the law applies to many facets of IP for multitudes of reasons.  If we dismissed parts of the law because they were "victimless" in the mindset of some observers, then  we run the risk of undermining genuine aspects of IP that protect genuine companies who invest in new technology.

 

EDIT: I guess the other thing is that laws being perfect or not, they are quite substantive in what they have to cover and deal with. And for the most part what we have here is a group of enthusiasts (who largely look only at software and PC components) and are trying to comprehend that relevance based only on the little bit that effects them superficially.   Trying really hard not to call everyone shallow, but in reality we all are when it comes to what we get and what we think we are entitled to.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

Can someone explain to me what was actually ON these restoration discs?  From the articles it sounds like they'd be universally compatible with any Windows PC so long as the original Windows key was available to the person servicing it.  Were they JUST Windows install discs?  Where they specially packaged all in one restore deals?  How were they in any way something that ANY repair shop couldn't just have on hand by their own accord with either the Media Creation Tool or commonly available boot images?

Everything I've read, they're just basic system repair discs. They're not even full Windows install discs.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Everything I've read, they're just basic system repair discs. They're not even full Windows install discs.

But they must have had something ON Them that belonged to to Microsoft.

 

All the articles are very vague as to what the actual contents of the discs were.  And that's been really bugging me about this since it first came into the news, there's no clear information as to why what he even had would have been of ANY interest to repair shops.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

But they must have had something ON Them that belonged to to Microsoft.

Redbull got sued, and lost, over the slogan "Redbull gives you wings," straight logic and reason doesn't always win.

 

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

All the articles are very vague as to what the actual contents of the discs were.  And that's been really bugging me about this since it first came into the news, there's no clear information as to why what he even had would have been of ANY interest to repair shops.

It really wouldn't surprise me if a shit ton of small shops didn't know about the system repair disc utility,  and use system restores or reinstall completely (after salvaging data with Linux, hopefully). It's been stated that the discs are only useful on machines with Windows licenses, so it's hard to imagine that install discs are the issue at hand.

 

It's also possible that the goal is to try to sell these to customers, well, at least the ones that seem like they can follow simple constructions for the discs.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

It really wouldn't surprise me if a shit ton of small shops didn't know about the system repair disc utility,  and use system restores or reinstall completely (after salvaging data with Linux, hopefully). It's been stated that the discs are only useful on machines with Windows licenses, so it's hard to imagine that install discs are the issue at hand.

 

It's also possible that the goal is to try to sell these to customers, well, at least the ones that seem like they can follow simple constructions for the discs.

So, in short, you have zero idea as to what was on the discs.  This absence of any information is useless to me.

[AshleyAshes]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Redbull got sued, and lost

Also, Redbull didn't lose.  They settled and admitted to no wrong doing.  Facts are important.

[DrMacintosh]

Who’s is the lawyer jockey now MS? 

[GoodBytes]

 

 

[STRESSMASTER]

Microsoft is sending a person to jail for selling copies of recovery discs of windows to techs for $0.25. He is going to get 16 months in prison. He is a e-waste recycler that did this just to prevent ppl from just trowing away their pc when the discs were lost but hardware wise it was fine.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/25/eric-lundgren-e-waste-recycler-jail-windows-restore-disks-microsoft/

 

Do you think this is right?

[knightslugger]

Quote

He decided to begin manufacturing restore CDs that could be sold to computer repair shops for a quarter each.

there's the rub. selling copyrighted duplicates for profit.

[GoodBytes]

 - Moved out -

[STRESSMASTER]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

there's the rub. selling copyrighted duplicates for profit.

It costs about 25 cents for a DVD blank. he wasn't doing it to make money that is for sure

[knightslugger]

Just now, STRESSMASTER said:

It costs about 25 cents for a DVD blank. he wasn't doing it to make money that is for sure

doesn't matter, he was doing it as an active part to support his business.

[kennethnakasone]

I thought the main reason why he lost the suit was because he made the DVD's look like official restore disks for Dell (HP? Acer? I forgot). I'll have to go look back and check.

[knightslugger]

Just now, kennethnakasone said:

I thought the main reason why he lost the suit was because he made the DVD's look like official restore disks for Dell (HP? Acer? I forgot). I'll have to go look back and check.

sounds right. there's an annotation on the bottom of the article.

 

i agree with the court's decision.

[STRESSMASTER]

2 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

sounds right. there's an annotation on the bottom of the article.

 

i agree with the court's decision.

Though I do agree with the courts final decision as well. What bothers me is that he was only recovering the cost of the DVD blank. I don't like how MS charges a minimum of $25 per disc per OS. The other OEMS I have dealt with have asked for even more than that in the past. This is why people didn't want to mess with buying a disc from OEM or MS. Though I agree he did it wrong. I believe personally that his Idea of making these discs avaliable for cost plus shipping should be made into a standard.

[knightslugger]

4 minutes ago, STRESSMASTER said:

I believe personally that his Idea of making these discs avaliable for cost plus shipping should be made into a standard.

That would undermine IP rights.