[Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  nobody gets confused, world-wide, about the Certification Mark "BLE"
>> or the Certification Mark "HDMI".
>>
>>  argh can't read the rest too busy, so sorry.  REALLY limited time right
>> now.
>
> Don't worry, I think I understand your point of view and I'm trying to
> put it in terms everyone else can follow. At least, I hope that's what
> I'm doing.
>
> Those are pretty good examples of what I'm talking about.
>
> If someone implements bad HDMI, then I assume they'll get sued if they
> even mention the word HDMI.

 no it's more than that: the Guardian (Copyright Holders) of the HDMI
Standard begin proceedings according to EXACTLY the same Trademark /
Certification Mark / Copyright Laws that *I* am required to follow....

 ... and that begins with "scuse me but you're using the word HDMI
without our explicit expressed consent".

 it's *EXACTLY* the same thing as if you tried to claim that a product
was "RYF Hardware-Endorsed".... without actually bothering to contact
the FSF.

 now, it so happens in the case of HDMI that you can simply put an
HDMI connector on the product.... what you CANNOT AND MUST NOT DO is
put the *WORD* "HDMI" anywhere on your product, because that has
SPECIFIC implications that the seller of that product HAS GONE THROUGH
THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS.

 it's real simple: if you haven't gone through the Certification
Process, *as defined by the Copyright Holder of the Certification
Mark*, you are NOT PERMITTED to put the word "HDMI" on the product.
or whatever the Copyright Holder says that you MUST do in order to
receive the Certification Mark.

 all of this is extremely well-known, by anyone that's done RYF
Certification, HDMI Certification, BLE (Bluetooth Low-Energy)
Certification and so on.

 EOMA68 is absolutely no different.


> Likewise if a hobbyist documents hacking
> an HDMI port to connect to a chip inside an adapter that converts it
> composite video, they'll run into either geo-restrictions or legal
> trouble, if that adapter fries the HDMI port.
>
> In the US people can say whatever they want, but, elsewhere in the
> world, they'll say 18-pin audio-video port to save their butts. And,
> again, for good reason because of scam artists exploiting language
> barriers.
>
> BLE they will say custom wifi.

 exactly.

>
> ---
>
> Luke has mentioned that if Intel makes a card the even looks slightly
> confuse-able for an EOMA68, without being certified then that would be
> infringement of the certification.

 this is complex, but it's part of Trademark / Certification Mark Law.
if even through "making something similar" you *still* cause
confusion, to the detriment of the Certification Mark with which you
are "competing", then yes, it doesn't actually matter if you don't
actually put the name "EOMA68" on it, if it runs the risk of breaking
something, or worst case killing someone due to a lithium battery
fire, then under Trademark Law yes my understanding is that i would be
permitted to drop a legal ton of bricks on the heads of the people who
were being irresponsible.

 there was a case involving Harrods and 'Arrods two decades ago.



> I presume HDMI has probably tested this in various courts, because, if
> a someone implements bad HDMI, they can't just get away with it by
> calling it something else.

 or... whatever.

> So that's another way how certification
> law, could be stricter than copyright or trademark law. But, I find it
> hard to believe patents owned by HDMI wouldn't be involved in securing
> a case like that.

 patents are totally different and in the specific example you
gave.... yes quite probably.  don't know.  REALLY should not be
replying to this right now.