Unauthori[sz]ed Practice of Law
statutes
Sat, 31 Dec 2005
From Predrag Ivanovic
Answered By: Rick Moen
Rick, does this
qualify?
He had to remove list of Linux compatible Bluetooth
devices from the site, because "[undisclosed] registered member of
the Bluetooth SIG complained about the non-qualified use of
Bluetooth products on this page and the features document." Altough
the BlueZ protocol stack is now qualified as a
Bluetooth subsystem, the list is still not there.
[Rick] 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 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."
[Rick] I don't want to make it seem as if
I'm making excuses for the unnamed Bluetooth Qualification
Administrator, but Holzmann may have agreed in his "Bluetooth
License Agreement" to use the term "Bluetooth" only in relation to
certified products. It's not entirely clear, what their objection
was.
[Rick] 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.
[Rick] Well, this is claimed to be based in
some contractual agreement.
Contract violation isn't punishable in the way
crimes are -- the former being merely civil disputes
between parties. In retrospect, I really do think this entire case
was about trademark rights, enforced with the aid of a rather
aggressively worded contract. Which Holzmann signed. We have no way
of knowing if he actually acted in violation of that
contract (neither side having published the terms in question), but
that's what's alleged.
An additional lesson is possible from noting that,
stipulating that Holzmann was caught violating some contract he had
agreed to, nonetheless the sky didn't fall. The parties just worked
out the complaint, and moved on.
As I've observed many times, many computerists have a
comical and self-destructive tendency to run shrieking in terror,
seeking permission to capitulate, the moment they see a paper (or
even e-mail!) demanding something, that looks as if it's been
breathed on by a lawyer. I can imagine that the idea of an actual
tort (such as violation of contract) would inspire them to
fainting spells.
A "tort" in the USA and other British-derived legal
systems is a civil wrong, i.e., a non-criminal action or failure to
act, that had the effect of making the person involved (the
"tort-feasor") fail an obligation towards someone else. The state
has no part in civil litigation, except to supply the courts and
judges: Each party pays his/her own legal expenses, and must
convince a judge that a wrong has been committed through a
"preponderance of the evidence". (Criminal cases, by contrast, must
be proved by the state per the much higher standard of evidence
being convincing "beyond any reasonable doubt".)
Generally speaking, all you can get if you win a civil
suit is either correction of the wrongful situation (a "remedy in
equity") or a money payment from the other side in compensation of
your loss (a "remedy in law"). Sometimes , you can get an
order that the other side pay your legal expenses. For a minority
of torts in which the plaintiff is able to show particular
recklessness, plaintiff can get "special" or "exemplary" damages to
deter other people from being screw-ups in that way, in the
future.
But that's really about it.
Now, people justly fear being sued (hauled into civil
litigation) simply because of expense of legal representation, but
that is a sword that cuts both ways (not to mention that "Discovery
should prove interesting" threat I cited earlier). Therefore, most
civil conflicts never go to court, even in the much-too-litigious
USA, and even in cases where sundry threats of litigation
have flown back and forth.
People go to court because either they're crazy, or
because the other side refuses to compromise and plaintiff thinks
he/she can win big enough to merit the time and expense.
Fortunately for our sanity, that happens rarely.
[Rick] 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".
Yet another "case study"
(RadioShack Saves Millions of Dollars by Choosing Windows over
Linux)
Wed, 04 Jan 2006
From Predrag Ivanovic
If TAG isn't place for this,I'm sorry,but I just had to
share few quotes from this...case study[1]. URL says it all,
really...
[Jason] Heh heh. Just skimming it, one thing
is obvious: They're scared.
"Benefits that the company expects to
realize by choosing Windows include a lower total cost of
ownership, simplified system management and deployment of software
updates, reduced staffing and training requirements, improved
system reliability and security, and... reduced exposure to the
risk of intellectual property infringement claims."
[...]
"Highly skilled resources for the Windows platform cost
significantly less than similarly skilled resources for Linux,"
says Cook. "Had we selected Linux, I'm sure that we would have
incurred significant additional staffing costs."
[Jason] Hey kids! Get your A+ Certification,
so you can work for less than a *NIX admin! 
[..]
"Unlike many Linux vendors, Microsoft provides its
customers with strong indemnification against patent, copyright,
trade secret, and trademark infringement claims without a monetary
limit--part of its commitment to ensuring that licensing issues and
questions of intellectual property do not present problems for
customers."
[1]
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=17131
[Ben] So they bought^Wfound themselves a
supporter at Radio Shack who, in his own words, is "a strong
advocate of Wind0ws XP Embedded" (note that he's the only
one they quote throughout the entire "case study".) Everyone here
is shocked - shocked, I tell you - what an unusual tactic for
Micr0s0ft!
I stopped being outraged, or even bothered by this a
long, long time ago. If you're going to read this kind of stuff, I
suggest that you adopt the same attitude; let them make the noise,
and we'll keep on producing the better OS. Those who are swayed by empty claims will do their thing;
the people and companies who actually have to watch their bottom
line instead of engaging in managerial dicksize wars will do
theirs. And Linux will keep growing just as it has. Quietly, and
regardless of Micr0s0ft "case studies".
- [Jason]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Zamos
[Rick] Which links to a "Cleveland Scene"
article that's the most entertaining read I've had in a long
time.
Short version: Zamos was a 21-year-old impoverished
student who couldn't use the XP educational copy he bought, tried
to return it under Microsoft's return policy and was rather
unscrupulously denied, tried to sell it on eBay, had his auction
questionably cancelled by a Microsoft flack, recertified his
auction as lawful and then sold the copy, was sued by Microsoft on
ridiculous copyright and trademark charges, countersued on several
charges while proving in court (represented only by himself) that
the lawsuit was bogus and the company's actions repeatedly in bad
faith, got international publicity for the lopsided court fight
that he seemed poised to win, insisted on a jury trial, and
eventually accepted a settlement that included a gag
agreement.
All his countersuit had requested was an apology and
reimbursement for his $60 product cost. Microsoft refused, and thus
ended up being taken to the cleaners -- in front of the entire
world -- by a 21-year-old pro-se litigant with a $3,500 annual
gross income.
RadioShack... and ferrets?
Wed, 04 Jan 2006
From Predrag Ivanovic
"Unlike many Linux vendors, Microsoft
provides its customers with strong indemnification against patent,
copyright, trade secret, and trademark infringement claims without
a monetary limit--part of its commitment to ensuring that licensing
issues and questions of intellectual property do not present
problems for customers."
[Sluggo] Regarding the last one... Microsoft
is allowing you to pay them off to avoid a problem they themselves
caused?
Isn't that what Ben used to do for the KGB? I thought
it was called "Extortion" though.
[Ben] You keep missing it, Mike. What I used
to do is take people who called it extortion - even those who
_didn't_ capitalize the word - stuff'em in a sack with hungry
ferrets on crack, and toss'em into a large dryer. Cost me $2.50
each time, but it was worth it.
[Jimmy] Now... that's just kind. I would use
crack-addicted hungry ferrets, but I'd make sure they were going
through withdrawal... mainly just to see if they'd eat'em or
smoke'em.
[Ben] Jimmy, from here on, I'll leaving the
design of these things to you. I'm obviously getting
behind the times, getting old and weak and decrepit... I'll just do
the knee-smashing, the spine-breaking, and the skull-cracking, and
you can do the hard bits.
[Ben] Say... how's your mustelid quotient
these days? Need to be upped any? 'Cause, y'know, I have low
friends in high places; we can oblige.
[Jimmy] I'm just amused by the mental
picture I have of a ferret holding a pipe. In a sack,
obviously.
[Ben] I'd imagine that you could bribe
Heather and get a JPG.
Google
Tue, 24 Jan 2006
From Mike Orr
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/01/24/1726241.shtml
'Google's product development pipeline runs at such a
fast rate that it's very difficult for any company, Microsoft or
Yahoo! to catch up.'
That couldn't be because they leverage and support open
source, could it?
[Rick] You know, these stories, are, like,
too spazzed out unless you run them through the Valspeak
filter:
http://www.80s.com/cgi-bin/valley.cgi?url=slashdot.org/articles/06/01/24/1726241.shtml
That's great!
Yahoo! Like, oh my gawd! gives up quest for scope dominance
Yahoo! Like, oh my gawd! Inc., one of the first Network for, like, total
spazzes scope companies, totally has capitulated to Google Inc. in the
battle for market dominance.
"We totally don't think it's reasonable to assume we're going to gain a lot
of share from Google," Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker said in an
interview. "It's not our goal to be No. 1 in Network for, like, total
spazzes search. We would be very happy to maintain our market
share."
I hope Thomas isn't getting a heart attack.
[Thomas] I'm like, "no way".
Everything you ever wanted to know
about C types, Part 1: What's in a type?
Thu, 05 Jan 2006
From Jimmy O'Regan
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-ctypes1/?ca=dgr-lnxw02CTypesP1
|
...............
"It is also possible to provide an incomplete definition of a
structure or union type, providing the tag name but not the
contents. Such an incomplete type cannot be directly used, but
pointers to such a type can be used (but not dereferenced). You can
use this to provide a level of encapsulation many people don't
realize is possible in C.
Listing 3. Encapsulation in C.
/* foo.h */
struct foo_hidden;
typedef struct foo_hidden *foo;
extern foo new_foo();
extern void delete_foo(foo);
/* foo.c */
struct foo_hidden {
/* contents go here */
};
... the <stdio.h> API never manipulates a FILE
object directly, only pointers to FILE objects. In fact, such
systems are entirely conforming. The humorous "Your stdio doesn't
appear very std." message that Perl's Configure script emits when
it can't figure out how to poke around inside a private structure
is simply false."
...............
|
Open Source cuddly penguins
Wed, 04 Jan 2006
From Jimmy O'Regan
"This project provides 'executables' that enable you to
make your own soft-toy Linux® penguin. To put it straight: You
can find sewing patterns and a community to sew your own soft toy
or stuffed Linux® Tux penguin here."
http://www.free-penguin.org
Ultra-cool gadgetry
Tue, 03 Jan 2006
From Benjamin A. Okopnik
In the "not (yet) Linux" category: this is the
cool gadget of the year - tablet computing on paper. I see some
very, very interesting possibilities in the future for this thing
if it gets into the mainstream.
http://www.mobilityguru.com/2005/12/19/pentop_computing_is_more_than_a_kids
http://www.flypentop.com
The usual brilliant Redmond
strategy: checkmate in two moves
Mon, 23 Jan 2006
From Benjamin A. Okopnik
Yes, but for *whom?*
http://www.gmtoday.com/news/technology/computers/topstory20.asp
Seems that Vista is going to require machines with more
resources than (my estimate) half the US population, and probably
95% of the people in the rest of the world, own.
[Sluggo] It worked for Windows
95....
Just what I need, a 3-D word processor.
[Thomas] DDD? No wait, that's a debugger.
Ah, I see now.
To be sure, Microsoft has said lesser computers will still be capable of
running Vista, just with some of the special features that differentiate
it from older versions of Windows automatically turned off.
"Lesser" computers? I love it.
Dell has a section on its Web site, at www.dell.com/vista, which
highlights computers the company recommends for those planning to
upgrade to Vista. For models for the home and home office, the
recommended desktop is priced at $1,749. The laptop costs $2,699.
Better and better, every day. Y'all ready to rush right
out and buy the top-buck gizmo of the day?
(*Don't* anybody breathe. If Micr0s0ft
actually falls for this one, we're home free.)
3 Cyrillic spams
Wed, 25 Jan 2006
From Rick Moen
Several spams got through over the last few days, in
fairly quick succession: I think I've now closed that hole. As a
reminder, this mailing list is a bit difficult to keep spam out of,
because of the open postings setting. (Posters aren't required to
subscribe.)
[Jimmy] Oh. I thought you were giving us
holiday suggestions ("Winter in Egypt"
Essentially, although my mail server's most
effective antispam measure is the RFC-compliance tests carried out
during each attempted delivery (because most malware and other spam
doesn't even try to observe proper SMTP requirements), my MTA's
knack, a bit later, of vetting each posting through SpamAssassin is
pretty useful, too.
Anyhow, as it turns out, some particularly clever spams
insert SMTP headers intended to disable SMTP-time SpamAssassin
checking on the receiving host. Today, I've changed the SA
settings slightly, to make its semaphores a bit more difficult for
spammers to forge. (The two most recent spams got through because
I'd left that reconfiguration unfinished, with the effect,
ironically, of disabling SA checking entirely until I realised my
error.)
Talkback: Discuss this article with The Answer Gang
Copyright © 2006, . Released under the Open Publication license
unless otherwise noted in the body of the article. Linux Gazette is not
produced, sponsored, or endorsed by its prior host, SSC, Inc.
Published in Issue 123 of Linux Gazette, February 2006
