[TAG] Unauthori[sz]ed Practice of Law statutes

[Predrag Ivanovic]

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 02:16:39 -0800
Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting Predrag Ivanovic :
> 
> > Rick,does this[1] qualify?
> 
> Pedja, thank you for the suggestion.  
> 
> I did follow that at the time that it was a current news item,  The sum
> and substance seems to be that the (unnamed) Bluetooth Qualification
> Administrator asserted (repeating the allegations of a third party) that
> Holtzmann had been distributing information about not-yet-certified
> software or hardware products ("non-qualified products") that had been
> entrusted to him under nondisclosure (the "Bluetooth License Agreement")
> as a member of the private Bluetooth SIG.  Or alternatively that
> Holzmann was violating his agreement by asserting that his BlueZ
> protocol stack was "Bluetooth" compatible, when it had not passed the
> required certification steps at that time.  Or both.  Or something
> similar.

Well,according to this:
 http://web.archive.org/web/20050309091636/www.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/devices.html
all he did is list drivers which are needed for some BT device to work with Linux.
I couldn't find anywhere "Device $foo is certified by Bluetooth authority as working."
 
> The problem is that the complaint may have been justified.  We don't
> have enough information to decide one way or the other.
> 
> But it's very common to tie trademark-licensing rights to compliance
> with an industry-controlled certification suite.  I can easily imagine 
> Holzmann getting caught in one of those pitfalls -- and no actual
> malfeasance being visited upon him by the industry consortium.

So,device is BT-compliant ONLY if it passed official certification,and since BlueZ was not
certified at the time,listing products that work with it is considered a violation of some sort,right?
And Holzmann received a slap on the wrist for doing that,so it seems.
If that's the situation,based on info I have and your analysis,this is just another
case of $institution enforcing strict regulations.I thought that only federal/government
agencies(FAA,FCC etc.) are that strict.  
 
> One lesson is:  Be careful what contracts you agree to.  If the
> "Bluetooth License Agreement" stipulates that you may not use a certain
> trademark-encumbered term without passing the associated certification 
> suite, then either decline the agreement or be prepared to live with its
> restrictions.

Excelent advice.
"Always read the fine print" and "Use your common sense".  

Thanks,Rick.

Pedja
-- 
 'Is it so difficult to master your bloody pride and admit that yes, a bunch
 of hackers turned out a better suite of utilities than your teams of
 engineers ever could?'  -- Robert Uhl