[TAG] Unauthori[sz]ed Practice of Law statutes
predivan at ptt.yu
Thu Jan 5 02:02:25 MSK 2006
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 02:16:39 -0800
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Predrag Ivanovic :
> > Rick,does this 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
Well,according to this:
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
"Always read the fine print" and "Use your common sense".
'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
More information about the TAG