Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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...?
The list is still there. From http://www.holtmann.org/linux/bluetooth/devices.ht ml:
h tml. Just look for an entry in the "HCI Version" field to verify the device works with Linux.
"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.
This isn't the sig you're looking for... Move along.
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.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!