[Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Jean Flamelle]

On 2/13/18, Julie Marchant <onpon4 at riseup.net> wrote:
> On 2018年02月13日 15:38, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> he's calling into question my authority and the right as a Copyright
>> Holder of the word - and standard - "EOMA68", chris.  that's very very
>> serious.  and also publicly recorded.  you can double-check that by
>> re-reading the messages.
>>
>>  i am REQUIRED to respond to that - by explicitly asserting that i AM
>> the sole exclusive Copyright Holder of EOMA68 and that i AM the sole
>> exclusive authority over the EOMA68 Standard, and that i cannot
>> tolerate people claiming that they are blithely and arbitrarily
>> permitted to ignore my authority under Copyright Law.
>
> Luke, I hope you don't find this to be pedantic, but if you do, I would
> point out that RMS is very vocal about this point.
>
> Copyright and trademark law are *not* the same thing. You can't hold a
> copyright on a name, only a trademark. This is an important distinction
> because the way copyright and trademark laws operate is not the same.
>
> As far as being "required to respond", I assume you are referring to the
> possibility of genericide of a trademark, when you lose a trademark
> because you fail to inform the public how it is properly used, causing
> it to be used to mean something more generic, e.g. if people started
> calling SEGA video games "Nintendos". This has nothing to do with
> "liability". It just has to do with whether or not a particular name can
> still be trademarked.
>
> Either that, or perhaps you are referring to some other law which is
> neither copyright nor trademark, and spreading confusion by using two
> wrong terms.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.
>

So this is a pretty solid reference:
https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1306.html

Basically the mark itself is currently ambiguous, so the only known
attributes are the text EOMA68. Until an actual mark is finalized,
EOMA68, in generic font, is the mark.

This isn't a matter of "genericide" but rather certified versus uncertified.
How is the distinction made?
Does one just say this is an EOMA68 housing/card?
Or, do they say they have EOMA68 certification?
The standard usage Luke has maintained is to say something is EOMA68,
so, if you're certified, you don't have to say you're certified. This
means if you see the word EOMA68 that it is strictly certified.

The name of the card is the Libre Tea, so that's what an hobbyist
should say they are using.
If a card is plugged into an uncertified housing, that card should no
longer fits the criteria for the certification, assuming the standard
is worded as it should be.

Why so strict?
Luke, wouldn't have to be strict if the certification mark read
"certified EOMA68", however, the certification mark is simply
"EOMA68", which tactically internationalizes the mark. This way it can
be the same across countries with different languages and, anyone able
to read those letters can trust the certification, regardless of if
they can read the rest of the package.

Say you're Chinese, if you see "EOMA-like" on a package then you might
not understand the word like and assume wrongly that the card is
EOMA68 certified. Luke is liable for that confusion, because, as a
part of the standard, Luke could-have-and-chose-not-to make rules
about what countries EOMA68 cards are allowed to be sold in and about
what languages labels must be printed in.

So let's say that someone wants to be extra-ecological and not use any
packaging, simply having EOMA68 engraved on the card demonstrated
certification. If someone resells damaged cards as new, certification
mark violation could be a pathway to restitution where there aren't
very strong purchaser protection laws. Luke could even define rules
for what to disclose about the assurance checks done when reselling a
used card. Depending on the jurisdiction, resellers would possibly
have to cover or destroy the mark, if they violated any of those
rules.

A standard could become very intrusive, if you think about it, but
only to protect principles. No matter how intrusive, it has to be
FRAND or else courts will order it be dissolved.

If someone is documenting their hobby projects, certifications
shouldn't be mentioned and any certification marks should be covered
in any images or videos. US law probably doesn't require this and
protects their citizens from needing to do this, however Luke may then
be required by the laws of other countries to request the content be
geo-restricted and pursue the liability of the hosting website if the
request isn't honored.
The world of international incorporation is fucking complicated.

Disclaimer: [what Julie said^]