On 2/13/18, Julie Marchant onpon4@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^]