Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bluetooth SIG Attacks Linux Bluetooth List

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the battle-royale dept.

Hardware Hacking 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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Take your fucking Hanukka (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339627)

And shove it up your butt

It is time to light the Holiday Candle Holder! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339766)

Teh Jews!

Old news (2, Informative)

kappa (104316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339631)

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

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14340748)

That's new by slashdot standards. Also if it isn't a dupe, we can post it again in a few days.

Re:Old news (0, Troll)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341430)

...and if it is a dupe, we can post it again in a few hours.

Gee... I wonder? (4, Funny)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339639)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339960)

Dude, you a clearly mistaken. I don't know what you've been smoking today, but the Bluetooth SIG that everybody else knows about has its headquarters in Kansas [infozine.com] . And that's why alot of Bluetooth research is done at the University of Kansas and KSU (like their EECE 690 and 890) classes [ksu.edu] .

Re:Gee... I wonder? (4, Informative)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340259)

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]

Re:Gee... I wonder? (0, Redundant)

mseidl (828824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340037)

I don't know if a lot of people know this, but Bellevue is right next to Redmond. AKA home of the friendly giant.

I actually worked at Microsoft, but I quit really quickly due to the pain and suffering I endured there. Plus, you know how much shit I got when I would make a linux crack? I am a linux junkie and I am proud of it. Woohoo! Lets just say that I felt really akward there when I brought my laptop running linux. ;) Martin

Re:Gee... I wonder? (1, Offtopic)

triso (67491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340658)

Lets just say that I felt really akward[sic] there when I brought my laptop running linux.
You were lucky. Nine years ago I was left hanging by my thumbs for a few weeks in the main dungeon (D1) for suggesting that we "think about" a distro of Linux to replace the much delayed Win-2000.

Re:Gee... I wonder? (0, Offtopic)

mseidl (828824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340925)

I got in trouble at work last week for telling someone(employee) to download openoffice.org when office 2k3 wasn't working right. So, the next day, I got a call from the boss when I was out at a clients, and he was like "We are not a linux shop, we are not an openoffice shop, we are not an open source shop. Talk to you later" And I was thinking, oh shit.

And the next day, a client was there, and he just shouts out, hey martin, what do you think of Microsoft. And I shouted back "I love Microsoft."

Now, the guys here, they don't really like MS. Their products cause of a great deal of grief, AT the same time though, they keep us in business. They like linux, and think it has their place. But, they don't want to support it. Plus Im the resident "linux" guy. As soon as I got there they put me in charge of the dns server. Which has been the most reliable machine there, running redhat 7.3.

Illegal...? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

RedLaggedTeut (216304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339697)

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 (1, Flamebait)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339718)

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

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

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339737)

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.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339748)

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 (4, Insightful)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339846)

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 (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339881)

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.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (2, Informative)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339947)

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 (1)

Klivian (850755) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339959)

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.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340049)

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 (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341336)

Exactly.

Datel, MadCatz, Recoton, etc., have referred to the Playstation 2, Gamecube, and Xbox by name on the packaging and in the documentation and software for their unlicensed console accessories for years. Sony, Nintendo, and MS hate them for it, but there's nothing they can do.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (3, Informative)

Quarters (18322) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (1)

part15guy (724057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339948)

It's called trademark. Congress passed laws protecting registered trademarks ...

My understanding was that this is a patent issue, not a trademark issue. If the Bluetooth protocol is patented technology, then isn't it true that you can't market products that use it without permission from the patent holders?

I have always thought that this is what the SIG was created to do.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340024)

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.

A judge (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340215)

A trademark owner has no power over nominative uses of the mark such as the subject list (or this discussion, for that matter).

A judge decides whether or not a use is nominative, and when you bring in judges, you bring in trademark attorneys, whose services tend to run too expensive for individuals to afford.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341035)

The owner of the Bluetooth trademark is legally obligated to protect their mark.

      As in, no one else can trade under that name without their permission, or confuse and mislead people into thinking that a product is a "Bluetooth" product when it's not. PERIOD. You can say "Bluetooth" until you are blue in the face, so long as it's established that the mark is not yours. You CANNOT prevent someone from saying or printing "Bluetooth".

      Personally I think Bluetooth sucks, and since that is my opinion, I can post it wherever I want and they can't do a damned thing about it.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (5, Informative)

standbypowerguy (698339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339796)

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.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340095)

Or, it took me about a minute to go "wayback" to the March 6th page to see the last complete list that was published.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340117)

> 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.

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (1)

farrellj (563) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340696)

How about "Chilldent", blue=cold=chilled, teeth are replaced with dentures...there for "Chilldent", and the first part also has a double meaning refering to "chilling" of free speech...

ttyl
          Farrell

Re:Bluetooth testsuite (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341051)

As far as I know you can't hunt down and kill individuals for using your trademark in discussion of your product. If you could then life would be crazy.

"What'd you have for lunch today."
"A burger and fries."
"Where from?"
"I can't tell you."
"What?"
"They have spies everywhere. Keep an eye out for guys in clown suits."

It really wouldn't work. So unless you're selling their product or had signed some sort of agreement I don't think they could do much about non-commercial use of their trademark. Hell if anyone wants to publish the list and they're being shit heads about letting you then don't get rid of it. Just publish it anonymously. If you need server space just ask in a public forum such as this one. I'd let you put it on my servers and I'm sure others would too. You can't just roll over when some corporate assholes decide to fuck with you.

Re:Illegal...? (0, Troll)

aminorex (141494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339711)

It's illegal in the sense that Microsoft makes the laws.

You are so fucked.

It's just like the GPL ... (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339732)

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?

Re:It's just like the GPL ... (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339871)

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?

Re:It's just like the GPL ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339923)

Still a dumb law in your mind?

Yes, because your refusal to provide the source code for your fancy Linux appliance in no way prevents me from going to my favourite kernel.org mirror and downloading the original source for installation on my file server.

Re:Illegal...? (1)

SpacePunk (17960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340562)

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

Re:Illegal...? (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340829)

The fact that this guy actually bent to their will and took the information down is the worst part.

He should have either:

1. Stood up to them and demanded an explanation that *wasn't* vague and disengenuous.

2. Arranged for the information to be hosted in a part of the world that respects free speech. (Assuming such places actually exist any more).

3. (If 2 isn't possible) Arranged for the server to be moved to a basement belonging to some militia group in Wisconsin (for example) who would only be told that it "contains information that Corporate America doesn't want the world to see"

Re:Illegal...? (1)

gronofer (838299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341088)

One possibility would be using the "Bluetooth" trademark without permission. But as far as I know, that would only apply when selling something (i.e., a non-commercial list is no more illegal than this Slashdot posting.)

Erm (4, Informative)

ChrisJones (23624) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339655)

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:Erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339787)

Or, straight out of the article, he'll still be updating this list [holtmann.org] and he says as long as the HCI field is filled in, the product should work fine . . .

Re:Erm (1)

anticypher (48312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339972)

It's the end of the year, and /. is reposting its best dupes from 2005 (and 2004 and...)

the AC

Why not mirror it? (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341124)

From where I've just downloaded it so that I can mirror it (but not until the Slashdot feeding frenzy has died down, I don't want to slaughter my own servers).

As I am not and never have been a party to the 'Bluetooth License Agreement', and since the list is copyright Marcel Holtmann, not the Bluetooth SIG, I think they can go whistle about asking me to take it down.

Why don't you - all of you - do the same? Remember to get all of

  • bfusb.html
  • bluecard.html
  • bpa10x.html
  • bt3c.html
  • bt950.html
  • btuart.html
  • devices.html
  • dtl1.html
  • toshiba.html
  • usb.html
  • vaio.html

Re:Why not mirror it? (2, Informative)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341278)

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? (4, Insightful)

Cinquero (174242) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:So what? (0, Troll)

standbypowerguy (698339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339814)

So what brand of video hardware do you use to get decent OpenGL support? I personally use Nvidia, but their products don't meet you criteria, since their Linux driver is proprietary.

Re:So what? (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339833)

It's a rather large assumption to make that OP needs OpenGL support.

Drivers? Don't need em! (1)

ChronosWS (706209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339983)

Actually, it happens that if you install the BlueZ stack, you can access bluetooth devices without any special drivers. I went out and picked up a Linksys USB bluetooth key and it fired right up and works without a hitch. There are a bunch of standard tools used to perform discovery of other devices and establish connections, and various programs to implement the protocols needed to talk to specific features on these devices.

Re:Drivers? Don't need em! (1)

kormoc (122955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340489)

And the bluez stack isn't a 'driver'?

Alternatives to SlashDot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339659)

Seriously 8 months old? Anyone got any good alternatives to slashdot?

Re:Alternatives to SlashDot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339685)

Kuro5hin is good. The trolls there are well educated and all.

Head on over to K5 [kuro5hin.org] and join the trolling.

Re:Alternatives to SlashDot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339726)

www.digg.com

Re:Alternatives to SlashDot (0, Offtopic)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339882)

Anyone got any good alternatives to slashdot?

Technocrat. [technocrat.net] Not a lot of users, though.

Re:Alternatives to SlashDot (0, Offtopic)

electrichamster (703053) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339939)

Not a lot of stories either for that matter (still in my aggregator though).

Re:Alternatives to SlashDot (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340196)

Not a lot of stories either for that matter

Maybe half a dozen a day? Though the he percentage that interests me is pretty high. Much higher than here. But you don't get many comments, and that's what I like best about slashdot. Despite all the silliness, there are still good, insightful posters on most every topic.

Re:Alternatives to SlashDot (1)

budword (680846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340042)

I stopped reading technocrat when they started posting long political rants against the war, I get enough of that from users on slashdot. I don't mind political rants in the comments, they get modded down as off topic usually, but when they post them as storys on the front page, it's time to look elsewhere for my daily dose of tech news.

Re:Alternatives to SlashDot (0, Offtopic)

Bob_Villa (926342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340168)

I just checked out technocrat, and it just seems like a poor copy of slashdot. It is kind of funny how most of the stories don't have any posts. Maybe all of the trolls here that just want to get first post could move to that site.

I also wasn't that impressed with the quality of the comments on digg.com. The site's news is okay sometimes, but I like the mix on slashdot, which is why I read this site.

However, for quality entertainment, I like www.i-am-bored.com

Where else can you see urban ninja, or a semi 'drifting' for three minutes, or play random flash games. I guess this is off-topic, but I don't really understand why the site we're supposed to be talking about didn't just comply, get certified and then re-display the list.

What is the problem? (0, Redundant)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339671)

Ok, maybe my English isn't as good as I thought.
But wtf is the problem anyway?

Re:What is the problem? (0, Troll)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340415)

The problem is that the illegal monopoly is being ugly as usual.

"unofficial" (3, Interesting)

198TFour (201363) | more than 8 years ago | (#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

Re:"unofficial" (1)

SpacePunk (17960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340593)

I'd just tell em to go fuck themselves, and if they thought it was 'illegal' they can just call the damn cops.

Let me be the scapegoat troll (0)

segment (695309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339694)

Please note that the use and distribution of non-qualified products is a violation of the Bluetooth License Agreement. As neither of these products have been qualified using Linux it is illegal to make them available for public use. The products haven't been "qualified" so why is everyone bitching and moaning. Instead wasting time and resources crying foul, why not take that same effort and qualify them. I'm sure if MS went and used some source code without posting INSERT_LICENSE_SCHEMA_HERE the community would cry foul, why is it a dual edged sword. Funny thing is people can comment on the "evil corporation" (myself included), but being this is a hardware, why not qualify it and shut up the skeptics instead of rambling on like crybabies.

Because they're not actually distributing anything (1)

Lifewish (724999) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339980)

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.

License Agreement? (4, Insightful)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 8 years ago | (#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?

Re:License Agreement? (1)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339757)

Against an agreement != illegal, dammit.

Re:License Agreement? (1)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340012)


  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...

Re:License Agreement? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340961)

Against an agreement != illegal, dammit.

      Hey it worked for Hollywood, it might work for software too if they whine loud enough and bribe the right politicians...

Re:License Agreement? (2, Informative)

oscartheduck (866357) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339768)

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? (4, Insightful)

Danse (1026) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:License Agreement? (2, Informative)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340032)


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...

Of course (3, Funny)

Lipsius (880028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339706)

Anyone know who this member was?

CowboyNeal, of course. Any doubts?

Re:Of course (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339977)

According to http://www.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/devices.ht ml [archive.org] ">the wayback machine the devies that were listed as NOT compatible were:
  • Digianswer chipset
  • Sphinx PICO Plug dongle
Everything else is listed as either working or not tested. Of course, it could have been a mfg. of one of the working devices who just didn't want to get Linux support calls.

Fair Use (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339750)

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?

Re:Fair Use (0, Troll)

ls -la (937805) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341017)

Since when did we agree to waive our free speech rights?

9/11
And "fair use" died when the government was bought by big business.

What product are we talking about? (4, Interesting)

PSaltyDS (467134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339794)

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."

the list title should have changed, nothing more (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339805)

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. Also, one would think that a product tested on one "official" stack would work on another "official" stack.... But, IMO, it was/is the list title/heading which is misleading( if it really is ), not the data.

It would be interesting to know what it takes to get hardware tested on another approved OS/stack? And why does this seem to be an OS thing and not a "stack" based issue... THAT seems strange.

LoB
 

I know the guy! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14339835)

His name was "Anonymous Coward"

No, not me. Wrong Anonymous Coward. One of the other ones.

Re:I know the guy! (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339969)

Was it the Next Guy? That man is just such a seething touchstone of hatred! (Oh sure, a few people like things as much as the Next Guy but it's always followed with a "but".) Everyone hates some things as much as the Next Guy, but he seems to hate everything!

It's the internet,,,geez (1)

ScooterBill (599835) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339872)

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...

No Kidding (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339991)

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.

ANTI-SLAPP (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340448)

I believe you meant we need anti-SLAPP laws.

bluez is bluetooth qualified... since april (4, Informative)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339879)

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?

the features document (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14340205)

"I am keeping the _features_document_ [...] If the HCI Version field is filled in this table, then this device should also work perfect with Linux"

click on "features document" in the linked article.

Re:bluez is bluetooth qualified... since april (1)

triso (67491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340689)

"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?"
Yes, you and the thousands of slashdotters trying to read it at the same time.

Re:bluez is bluetooth qualified... since april (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341044)

Yes, you and the thousands of slashdotters trying to read it at the same time.

The force is strong with this one...

The issue (2, Insightful)

gladmac (729908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14339934)

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. It is probably true that the makers of Bluetooth devices have a license agreement with the group that prohibits them from marketing their device as compatible with a specific environment without having gone through the qualification. The group might want to imply that it is illegal for those companies to be on that list, and therefore illegal to publish it.

It might also be that the site owner through involvement with BlueZ actually has signed an agreement to follow guidelines of the group, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Re:The issue (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340059)

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 (1)

gladmac (729908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340082)

You're right, IANAL. And I would probably also have complied. Getting the story posted on /. is a smart move though:)

Re:The issue (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340940)

You could be right -- but you still need to qualify such a statement with IANAL.

      Rubbish. This attitude is what has us in this mess in the first place. He doesn't have to qualify ANYTHING. He might be a lawyer, and he might not. Who cares? You should take EVERYTHING you read (even (or I daresay, ESPECIALLY) from a "real" lawyer) with a strong dose of critical thinking anyway... The problem nowadays is people try to blame the person who makes a mistake instead of blaming themselves for being foolish enough to follow that persons advice without checking up first.

Disclaimer: You do not have to agree with the above.
Disclaimer for the disclaimer: I am not an official legal disclaimer specialist.
Disclaimer for the disclaimer for the disclaimer...

We're a mafia? (3, Insightful)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340249)

"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?

Nobody told you? We're a WOB (1)

HishamMuhammad (553916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340279)

Read all about it! [slashdot.org]

HTH HAND

Everyone in the Middle East... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14340527)

...is a terrorist. Don't you watch Fox News?

Re:We're a mafia? (1)

xski (113281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340618)

the SCO guy

Oh yes, apparently the whole thing made quite an impression on you.

Re:We're a mafia? (1)

SpacePunk (17960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340625)

Whoever complained is an asshole. Who is or is not an asshole must be known, and those persons/companies ostracized(sp).

Re:We're a mafia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14340794)

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.


And surprise surprise, YOU'RE the one who created that baseless accusation.

The article you misquoted (whether maliciously or due to stupidity) was about execs having their cellphone IDs stolen.

Re:We're a mafia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14340968)

Darl MacBride made a substantial sum of money running an operation that sought to bend IP laws to be disruptive of many legitmate ventures, products, and academic pursuits. That he became one of the most noted pariahs of our time is nobody's fault but Darl Macbride's. Some things are just so foul they deserve all the opprobrium they get.

Quick Legal Analysis (5, Informative)

EconomyGuy (179008) | more than 8 years ago | (#14340846)

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:Quick Legal Analysis (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14341147)

Actually, there is a generic term: "Bluetooth Wireless Technology". This is why, for example, the JSR82 expert group ended up with the legally-correct mouthful of Java APIs for Bluetooth Wireless Technology (JABWT) instead of just Bluetooth for Java.

You're probably right that it's a trademark violation, but the bigger issue is that the maintainer of BlueZ is a member of the Bluetooth SIG, or he wouldn't have the right to use the intellectual property (technical specifications etc.) developed and owned by the Bluetooth SIG in his products. And to remain a member of the Bluetooth SIG you must agree among other things to use the brand carefully. It seems that for whatever reason the SIG determined that the page in question did not.

Getting a lawyer involved to defend a particular page of HTML is a poor suggestion. Both BlueZ and the Blueooth SIG and all of the other members don't need to waste money on a legal battle like this. They just to agree on what is best for Bluetooth technology and move forward with that.

When did it become illegal to publish facts? (1)

FunFactor100 (848822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14341245)

Let me get this straight, some guy posted a list of bluetooth devices that work on linux. Basically he stated that device X works on linux, which is just a fact. How is he breaking any laws?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?