Bluetooth SIG Attacks Linux Bluetooth List 127
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 (Score:2, Informative)
Erm (Score:5, Informative)
The list is available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20050310010832/http://
Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:2, Informative)
So it's not *directly* illegal, you just run the risk of a trademark violation lawsuit, unless you call it something else.
Re:License Agreement? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:4, Informative)
bluez is bluetooth qualified... since april (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:3, Informative)
Probably not, but companies with products listed with the bluetooth logo are very likely trying to make a profit.
Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:3, Informative)
Re:License Agreement? (Score:3, Informative)
But he wasn't using any patent, just distributing factual information about some products out there...
Re:Bluetooth testsuite (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gee... I wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
TFA links to http://lwn.net/Articles/163266/ [lwn.net]
On that page we read:
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?
http://tinyurl.com/e4olu [tinyurl.com]
Quick Legal Analysis (Score:5, Informative)
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:Why not mirror it? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Informative)