Bluetooth SIG Attacks Linux Bluetooth List

Karma Sucks writes "As reported in the latest free edition of LWN the Bluetooth Qualification Administrator has demanded that the Linux BlueZ project take down the highly-useful Bluetooth hardware compatibility list for Linux with the intimation that 'As neither of these products have been qualified using Linux it is illegal to make them available for public use'. This was apparently done at the request of a registered member of the Bluetooth SIG. Anyone know who this member was?"

Old news

This issue is almost one year old. The page under link was last modified in April.

Gee... I wonder?

The Bluetooth SIG has established its global headquarters in Bellevue, Washington, USA.

Who hangs out near Belelvue, WA and would object to anything linux-related?

Re:Gee... I wonder?

Once again the term RTFA comes to mind:

TFA links to http://lwn.net/Articles/163266/ [lwn.net]

On that page we read:

Weird factors come into play. The BlueZ project used to have a very nice list of working hardware, but that list was pulled down [holtmann.org] as a result of objections from the "Bluetooth Qualification Administrator."

On that page there are two mailto: links - mailto:[e-mail] [mailto] and mailto:[e-mail] [mailto]

See that @bluetooth.com bit? That's called a domain. Since these bits of email are going to people @bluetooth.com it is safe to assume that they are involved with the website that appears at http://www.bluetooth.com/ [bluetooth.com] - let's go there, shall we?

There is a very prominent link "about the SIG" that appears on this page. Since TFA was about "a registered member of the Bluetooth SIG" it is fairly probably that this is the SIG in question. Let's click on the 'about the SIG' [bluetooth.com] link, shall we?

The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) is a trade association comprised of leaders in the telecommunications, computing, automotive, industrial automation and network industries that is driving the development of Bluetooth wireless technology, a low cost short-range wireless specification for connecting mobile devices and bringing them to market.
The Bluetooth SIG is a privately held trade association and is not publicly traded. The Special Interest Group, whose name was inspired by the Danish King Harald Bluetooth, known for unifying Denmark and Norway in the 10th century, was founded in September 1998. Now, in the 21st century, unification is a guiding principle of Bluetooth wireless technology, as it connects innovative products and companies to consumer aspirations.
The Bluetooth SIG has established its global headquarters in Bellevue, Washington, USA . The staff is comprised of Executive Director Michael Foley, Ph.D., Marketing Director Anders Edlundand a small staff of Marketing, Engineering, and Operations professionals. In addition to the Bluetooth SIG Staff, volunteers from member companies play key roles in running the Bluetooth SIG organization.
The Bluetooth SIG includes promoter member companies Agere, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Microsoft , Motorola, Nokia and Toshiba, and thousands of Associate and Adopter member companies.

http://tinyurl.com/e4olu [tinyurl.com]

Illegal...?

In what way exactly is it illegal to post a list of information like this, even with all the dumb laws the USA is passing these days...?

Bluetooth testsuite

Bluetooth products have to pass a test-suite. Not all of the software might have been tested or be able to pass the test.

I believe they still should be able to publish the list, they just should must avoid somehow to carry the "Bluetooth"-tag. Maybe Linux should just make up a fancy new protocol name like "Redbeard" or so for the protocol :-P

Re:Bluetooth testsuite

"Bluetooth products have to pass a test-suite."

Did Congress pass a law stating that? I'm guessing not.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite

It's called trademark. Congress passed laws protecting registered trademarks quite a long time ago. The owner of the Bluetooth trademark is legally obligated to protect their mark. If they don't the mark can be considered as falling into general use and then they will lose any legal protections the trademark currently gives them.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite

A trademark is not a copyright. A trademark owner has no power over nominative uses of the mark such as the subject list (or this discussion, for that matter). The list is entirely legal and need not have been removed.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite

It still doesn't make sense though. You refered to Bluetooth in your post and I'm guessing you didn't ask Bluetooth for permission to do that.

He isn't trying to sell his post.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite

The Linux BlueZ site wasn't selling anything either.

Probably not, but companies with products listed with the bluetooth logo are very likely trying to make a profit.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite

Whether or not anything is be sold is irrelevant. A trademark owner can prevent others from use his mark to label their products or in ways that might confuse the public as to what is being sold, but he cannot prevent them from using it to refer to his pr

Re:Bluetooth testsuite

The list is still there. From http://www.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/devices.ht ml [holtmann.org]:

"I am keeping the features document, because it has nothing to do with Linux. These products are available on the market and thus all of them should be qualified. If the HCI Version field is filled in this table, then this device should also work perfect with Linux."

The "features document" can be accessed at http://www.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/features.h tml [holtmann.org]. Just look for an entry in the "HCI Version" field to verify the device works with Linux.

Erm

This happened back in March. it still sucks though.

The list is available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20050310010832/http://w ww.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/devices.html [archive.org]

Re:Why not mirror it?

Which I've now done, and the location should be obvious to any moderately sentient being. However, please be kind and get your copy from archive.org [archive.org], because they've got shedloads more bandwidth than I have.

To those people who say 'there's no point' for

So what?

I don't care. If there is no open-source driver for Linux, I simply won't buy the product. If they can live with that, I can do so too.

"unofficial"

easy - cant they just rename it the "unofficial compatibility list" and put in some "this is nto official bla bla bla in small print" or better yet - tell the bluetooth peopel to get lost

License Agreement?

The rest of the quote from LWN states:

Please note that the use and distribution of non-qualified products is a violation of the Bluetooth License Agreement.

What I'm curious about is what is this license agreement and did the guy running this list agree to it?

Re:License Agreement?

Bluetooth is a propietary technology; standardisation is being worked upon (IEEE 801.15). There are several patents involved on the technology, therefore companies that wish to use it sign a licensing agreement. I can't get a hand on the exact terms, though I read that it's royalty free.

AFAIK, you don't need a license to talk about something on your website, even if it's patented or trademarked or what have you. I think the complaint was a bunch of hand-waving threats that unfortunately had the intended effect without having any legal weight behind it.

Re:License Agreement?

Bluetooth is a propietary technology; standardisation is being worked upon (IEEE 801.15). There are several patents involved on the technology, therefore companies that wish to use it sign a licensing agreement

But he wasn't using any patent, just distribut

Of course

Anyone know who this member was?

CowboyNeal, of course. Any doubts?

What product are we talking about?

I may be missing something obvious, as I never used this list before seeing this article, but I didn't understand the statement:

"...a registered member of the Bluetooth SIG complained about the non-qualified use of Bluetooth products on this page..."

The cynic in me ASSUMES "member" is Microsoft, but my inner cynic is sometimes wrong. My question is what "Bluetooth products" were on that page? To be "on the page" implies text or a list, not a device. Did the BlueZ page copy some table or something from a Bluetooth source? It might have helped if he had posted the whole complaint, not just this statement, but maybe he lawyer-beaten into only posting that much.

"Whether or not you're selling them makes no difference."

Selling what? As I understand it, this was just a compatibility list. What might they have been selling-yet weren't.

"The problem is due to the distribution of them from your Web site."

Again, what are "them" that they are distributing, but not selling?

"Please note that the use and distribution of non-qualified products is a violation of the Bluetooth License Agreement."

Once more, what products? This hints at calling things "Bluetoth" that are not, which would be a trademark issue, I guess. But what product are they talking about?

"As neither of these products have been qualified using Linux it is illegal to make them available for public use."

'Neither' means two 'products' have not been 'qualified' (by Bluetooth SIG, I gather), but what products and how are they illegal? I was looking for something like a claim to be "Bluetooth" without permission, but is that what the BlueZ list did? If so, how does that become a takedown instead of a rewording? For example, if they had said "The following devices are Bluetooth certified on Linux", they could just say "The following devices, which are Bluetooth certified under other operating systems, work under Linux too, though that is not certified by the Bluetooth SIG."

bluez is bluetooth qualified... since april

an apparent update from the situation in March, from TFA:

"Since April, 11th 2005 the BlueZ protocol stack is qualified as a Bluetooth subsystem. Companies can now use this listing to qualify their adapters with Linux support."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this now render the issue moot? The reason the SIG was interested in taking the list down was because BlueZ wasn't qualified. Now it is (or rather, back in April it became) qualified, so what is the issue here?

The list still does not seem to be up, although I didn't look very hard for it. So is there something still blocking it?

We're a mafia?

"Anyone know who this member was?"

What? Now we're a mafia?

Should someone do anything against us OSS/slashdot crowd, do we find the person's name and attack humiliate him/her? Think of the SCO guy. His name is associated with evil throughout the IT world now, thanks to sites like slashdot. He might deserve it, but most people dont follow up and check whether he's actually as wrong as we're made to think (slashdot articles have been wrong/exaggerating on more than one occasion).

A recent artice accused Rogers execs of having links to terrorists. This is an extremely baseless accusation based on phone calls to somewhere in the middle east. But this shows we're turning from being a bazaar to a bit like a mafia. (Open your sources.... or else). Do article moderators and editors know how much personal damage can they cause?

Quick Legal Analysis

In response to this story I did a little research and sent a letter to the website's author with some quick legal analysis and a suggestion to seek actual legal counsel. For those who are interested, here is the quick and dirty part of the letter:

It would be helpful to get a copy of the full letter from SIG, but I gather their central claim is a trademark violation. On this issue you have several possible defenses. First, I suggest your strongest argument is based on the unavailability of a generic term by which to describe Bluetooth technology. This is similar to the situation Kleenex found it self many years ago... by using the term Kleenex to describe their product and never using the generic term (tissue), they destroyed their own mark. A company who owns a mark, even a patented mark, MUST provide a term that can be used to describe their product by the competition. I reviewed the entire SIG site and could find no generic term to describe Bluetooth.

Second you have an arguable fair use defense. Your site is making commentary on the products in question, noting that these devices will work in Linux. That is classified as criticism and protected under the First Amendment.

Re:The issue

He might be a lawyer, and he might not. Who cares?

Somebody who takes his advice and gets in trouble because of it. Sure, lawyers are fallible — but they still know a lot of shit.

You're on some kind "personal responsibility" bandwagon that I'm n