Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Bluetooth SIG Attacks Linux Bluetooth List

Posted by Hemos on Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:30 AM
from the battle-royale dept.
Hardware Hacking Linux Business
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?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Bluetooth SIG Attacks Linux Bluetooth List 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Old news (Score:2, Informative)

    by kappa (104316)
    This issue is almost one year old. The page under link was last modified in April.

  • Gee... I wonder? (Score:5, Funny)

    by keraneuology (760918) on Monday December 26 2005, @10:36AM (#14339639) Journal
    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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by keraneuology (760918) on Monday December 26 2005, @01:18PM (#14340259) Journal
        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:bqa@bluetooth.com [mailto] and mailto:member.relations@bluetooth.com [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...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26 2005, @10:39AM (#14339646)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RedLaggedTeut (216304) on Monday December 26 2005, @10:54AM (#14339697) Homepage Journal
      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
      • "Bluetooth products have to pass a test-suite."

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

        • Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I agree with your point, but "Bluetooth" is probably a registered trademark and in order to use it on anything you need to comply with the terms of the trademark owner, which in this case probably includes passing a test suite and sending them $x.

          So it's not *directly* illegal, you just run the risk of a trademark violation lawsuit, unless you call it something else.
          • 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.

            I don't think that they have the right to stop people from using the term. This is simply a case where the BT doesn't like certain information and is throwing around their weight to stop it from being published.

            • Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:5, Insightful)

              by LDoggg_ (659725) on Monday December 26 2005, @11:46AM (#14339846) Homepage
              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.

              • 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.

                The Linux BlueZ site wasn't selling anything either.

                • 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.
                • The Linux BlueZ site wasn't selling anything either.

                  Not entirely true, they was "selling" the fact of which devices having support/works with Bluez/Bluethooth under Linux. They where not charging any money for it, but does not matter. Non-profit organizations are not exempt form trademark law either.
                  • 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 products. Nominative use is not restricted. The list was stating simple facts about Bluetooth products. This is entirely legal, no matter how much the trademark owner may dislike it.

        • Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:4, Informative)

          by Quarters (18322) on Monday December 26 2005, @11:54AM (#14339866)
          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.
          • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by standbypowerguy (698339) on Monday December 26 2005, @11:29AM (#14339796) Homepage
        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.

      • > I believe they still should be able to publish the list, they just
        > should must avoid somehow to carry the "Bluetooth"-tag.

        Nonsense. Publishing a list does not infringe a trademark. No one owns the word "Bluetooth". Trademarks are not copyrights.
    • 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...?

      It's just like the GPL, you only have the right to distribute if you comply with certain terms. If I make an appliance that uses Linux internally and I refuse to provide the source code to the kernel isn't that illegal also? Still a dumb law in your mind?

      • It's just like the GPL, you only have the right to distribute if you comply with certain terms. If I make an appliance that uses Linux internally and I refuse to provide the source code to the kernel isn't that illegal also? Still a dumb law in your mind?

        In what way is your example anything at all like publishing a list of compatible hardware?

    • It's probably 'illegal' because the dude didn't pony up money to the bluetooth cabal.

  • Erm (Score:5, Informative)

    by ChrisJones (23624) <cmsj-slashdot@te ... BSDnet minus bsd> on Monday December 26 2005, @10:41AM (#14339655) Homepage Journal
    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]
    • It's the end of the year, and /. is reposting its best dupes from 2005 (and 2004 and...)

      the AC

      • 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 one reason and another, the point is that if people get used to the idea that the only thing you achieve by taking down something like this is a whole raft of mirrors, we'll see far fewer such takedowns.

  • So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cinquero (174242) on Monday December 26 2005, @10:42AM (#14339657)
    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" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 198TFour (201363) on Monday December 26 2005, @10:52AM (#14339691)
    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) on Monday December 26 2005, @10:54AM (#14339700)
    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?

    • Against an agreement != illegal, dammit.

      •   Against an agreement != illegal, dammit.


        Well, if he agreed to it, then yes it would be illegal. They're called contracts. However if it is just the usual kind of license "agreement" as the software industry usually uses that term then sure, those aren't worth the paper they're printed on. But we don't know what kind this is...

    • 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.

      • Re:License Agreement? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Danse (1026) on Monday December 26 2005, @12:03PM (#14339892)

        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.


      • 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 distributing factual information about some products out there...

  • Anyone know who this member was?

    CowboyNeal, of course. Any doubts?

  • Fair Use (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since when do you have to agree to a license to provide a commentary? I believe this to be fair use. Since when did we agree to waive our free speech rights?

  • What product are we talking about? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PSaltyDS (467134) on Monday December 26 2005, @11:29AM (#14339794) Journal
    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."

  • I wonder if the author of the list contacted EFF for some legal assistance? It would appear to me that listing consumer opinions of how one product works with another can not be illegal.

    Granted, saying the list is a BlueZ Bluetooth(tm) Hardware Support List when the BlueZ stack is an officially tested stack seems reasonable if the Bluetooth "standard" is well defined. But even then, if their issue is that the hardware was not tested on BlueZ on GNU/Linux, then change the list title, don't remove the list. A

  • I know the guy! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    His name was "Anonymous Coward"

    No, not me. Wrong Anonymous Coward. One of the other ones.
  • It never ceases to amaze me how so many organizations and their lawyers think they can stifle free speech on the internet. The internet just doesn't respond that way. They're only highlighting the obvious need for this information. I wonder how many people didn't know about this before their action who now do and will simply google their way to it...
    • We need MUCH stronger SLAPP laws. I'd like to see filing a SLAPP suit made a federal crime, with jail time and HUGE fines behind it. Possibly even severe punishment for any lawyer involved in such a thing. Perhaps we should all write our Congressmen and bring the issue up. I tend to be pretty cynical about them, but it can't hurt to ask.
  • 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?

  • I think the issue is this. There is a rigorous framework in place for how to qualify your devices, and the Bluetooth interest group is making a lot money conducting that qualification. In fact, it might be their main source of income. It's not necessarily a bad thing either if the testing is good and helpful, and the price for it is fair (I assume it's not, but anyway).

    Having third party compatibility lists cropping up undermines the power the group has to force hardware vendors to pay for qualification.

    • Also, I guess the "illegal" part is bogus as far as the site owner goes.
      You could be right — but you still need to qualify such a statement with IANAL. Ideally, one should never make decisions about how to respond to this kind of demand without talking to a lawyer. Then again, if you can't afford a lawyer, it makes sense to comply even if you think the demand is bogus. Which is what seems to have happened with the site in question.

        • Re:The issue (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fm6 (162816)

          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 not going to try to decipher, because it's not relevant to the topic at hand. Which is: You've gotten a cease and desist letter, what should you do? Whatever you do, it better not be based on the opinion of somebody who knows just enough law to get you in t

  • We're a mafia? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mnmn (145599) on Monday December 26 2005, @01:17PM (#14340249) Homepage
    "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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by EconomyGuy (179008) on Monday December 26 2005, @03:04PM (#14340846) Homepage
    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.
    • If you click through to the original comment by the administrator who removed the list, he didn't have any clue what the hell their point was either - this is just a damn compatibility list, they're not distributing anything other than a list of names - but removed it anyway just in case.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.