Excellent, I find both the ruling and the fine reasonable. It wasn't disproportionately heavy, but will make people think twice before violating the GPL.
Quite the opposite. It would restore equality in the punishment, as it should hurt the same to the offender no matter how wealthy they are. As it is now, we're favoring the rich overwhelmingly.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
Indeed, equality before the law really is not a straightforward thing.
No, it doesn’t; a fine of N years income or N% of wealth is at least as much equal treatment as a fine of $N. And current law recognizes it, because even though fines are typically stated with a fixed upper limit, which in some cases is low enough to make them ignorable by the rich, within that upper limit, the law already recognizes that equality before the law doesn’t mean “same $ amount for everyone”. E.g., for federal fines, see 18 USC § 3572(a): “In determining whether to impose a fine, and the amount, time for payment, and method of payment of a fine, the court shall consider […] (1) the defendant’s income, earning capacity, and financial resources; (2) the burden that the fine will impose upon the defendant, any person who is financially dependent on the defendant, or any other person (including a government) that would be responsible for the welfare of any person financially dependent on the defendant, relative to the burden that alternative punishments would impose; […]”
That would quickly lead to poor individuals and non-profit companies trying to transfer the benefits of their low-cost infractions to others.
That's a great rationale right up until the point that a court finds the company in contempt of the original judgement[1]. In this case you don't need the penalty to scale - you don't even need the penalty at all - the order most likely says something to the effect of "stop the infringement".
[1] The order most probably read like "Pay the fine and stop the infringement". Simply paying the fine doesn't allow you to ignore the second part of the order, and the penalties for contempt of court are enough to sink the company. Just ask Gawker, who went under not because of what they published, but because they ignored a court order that ordered them to stop publishing it.
Penalties only for distributing is quite different from no penalties at all.
Punitive damages in terms of IP are allowed in the EU, but up to individual member states. Ireland and Cyprus currently allow punitive damages as did the UK did when it was a member.
https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.nerd...
Code enforcement people aren't stupid. They can and likely would escalate in that sort of situation.