I think it needs rephrasing. There's a lot that can be argued when you phrase it as "counterfeit restore discs", but it's open-and-shut trademark infringement. I know that's not what Microsoft was arguing, but in reality that's closer to what the judge ended up going with when you account for the reduced "cost" per disc.
Like he said in his defense, if he had labeled it "Eric's Restore Disc" instead of putting the Dell and Windows logo on it, he probably would have skirted any real repercussions.
Like he said in his defense, if he had labeled it "Eric's Restore Disc" instead of putting the Dell and Windows logo on it, he probably would have skirted any real repercussions.