The problem is we criminally charge commercial infringement. The defendant put others' logos on disks he sold. This shouldn't result in jail time, but that's what the law says. The problem isn't the court, it's the law.
>The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony. “I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was,” Lundgren said.
Oh, I think there was a problem with the court.
That testimony seems irrelevant to the charge which resulted in the jail time. Theoretically valueless or not, the discs were sold with an infringing logo. That combination--infringement and commercial intent--is a crime under our laws.
That's one of the sad truths about life. Those that break the law, or do things seen as unsavory, take pains to hide their actions, motivations, and responsibility. Those attempting to do good that inadvertently break the law don't take those steps because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong, or that if people thought they were they could of course explain away the misunderstanding.
What you're left with is this, where the majority of corporate malfeasance goes unpunished or severely under-punished, but the accidental minor criminal gets jail time. It's definitely a failure of the legal system, but how do you address the fact that those that worry about being caught up in the legal system will be more prepared for if they eventually are?
The court ignored expert witness testimony that the disks were useless without a valid license and came up with a ludicrous amount.
The defendants belief was that many customers weren't knowledgeable enough to download restore images from the internet. He was selling them to used computer shops so they could provide them to their customers as a courtesy.
He charged $0.25 per disc, and had 28,000. So his total would have been $7k? He eventually sold them for less than $5k. Not any kind of windfall profit.
Given you can download those restore images for free, what exactly was the copy right infringement?
I agree that the US system is fucked up when it imprisons people who haven't committed violent crime.
Do we know why? Courts don't throw out testimony for no reason.
In any case, from what I understand the calculation of value principally factors into the fine. The jail time results from the defendant selling disks with others' logos on them.
Another commentor dug up more detailed information, which intimated that the defendant wouldn't have made $80,000 worth of discs that had no value.
To be fair, arguing that someone you sold has no value is a bit hare-brained.
All that said, this is a side show. The criminal sentencing resulted, principally, from his using others' logos without permission on a product he sold. The combination of infringement and commerce is apparently something our laws are paranoid about.
It protects you from shoddy fakes that do stuff like install malware (which other counterfeiters might have tried if the law were more lax on counterfeits) or stuff not following safety guidelines (like fake chargers that burn your house down).
Well enforced trademark law means that you as a buyer can investigate a seller and know what you're getting based on their reputation. And well enforced trademark law means that you as a seller are incentivized to protect your brand by making good/safe products.
EDIT: you can argue copyright or patents are bad, but fundamentally I cannot see the world be a better place without trademark laws in some form.
Without a licence which he was not providing they are useless.
Rule of law. You go to jail for breaking the law, not for being unethical or immoral. Societies which forget this distinction fall fast. (Legislation, turning morals and ethics into laws, is the intermediating process your complaint more properly addresses.)