wp-plugin-hostgator
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source: https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2022\/4\/7\/23015034\/fca-bluetooth-radio-case-first-sale-doctrine-appeals-argument<\/a> A US appeals court has decided that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (or FCA) has a valid argument in a trademark case brought against it by the standards organization behind Bluetooth. The case being litigated could end up setting a precedent about whether automakers can buy radios that are already certified for Bluetooth or whether they will also have to pay the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) to certify the cars<\/em>, too, adding cost at a time when car prices are already ballooning<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Bluetooth SIG sued the automaker \u2014 now known as Stellantis after FCA merged with Peugeot \u2014 back in 2018. At the time, it said that FCA was improperly using its trademark on cars like the Jeep Wrangler and Dodge Grand Caravan, which Bluetooth SIG hadn\u2019t certified. The appeals court\u2019s decision means that the case is being sent back to the lower court, which will now have to listen to the automaker\u2019s argument. You can read that decision at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n FCA\u2019s defense, which was initially rejected by that lower court, is that Bluetooth SIG is trying to double-dip by saying that both the car radio and the car itself have to go through certification. Its basis is something called the first sale doctrine<\/a> \u2014 a concept that\u2019s meant to allow the resale of copyrighted works. In this case, FCA is saying that it applies because it buys its infotainment systems from companies like Alpine, Harmon, and Panasonic, which have already paid fees and gotten their products certified for Bluetooth. Why should it have to re-certify what\u2019s already been certified just because it slotted those products into a dashboard?<\/p>\n
\n
<\/br><\/code><\/p>\n