Designing with Bluetooth? Beware. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 03:58:40 am
content: Did you know that if you buy a Bluetooth module and use it in a new product, you are liable to pay thousands of dollars to have the right to use Bluetoothper product type, even if that module you have purchased is already is Bluetooth registered and certified with the fees being paid?The Bluetooth Special Interest Group, a so-called "not for profit" organisation, appears to be very interested in making money. In any case, the module vendor would have already paid the fees, so this "not for profit" Special Interest Group is price gouging by double dipping.https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/qualification-listing-feeshttp://www.microchip.com/forums/m1016226.aspxThe Bluetooth SIG are actively pursuing those who don't pay up with letters of demand. Bluetooth SIG seem to have forgotten what happened when IBM got too greedy over licensing fees for their Microchannel Architecture - the market adopted the less capable but much lower cost EISA bus instead. Despite BLE being pretty good, there are several alternatives around.Have you developed a Bluetooth product and sold it without handing over the license fees?

author: jjoonathan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 04:01:15 am
content: Bluetooth is such a steaming pile that I almost hope the SIG self-destructs and makes way for something decent.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 04:02:42 am
content: Yes, CONFESS! Tell us your sins!

author: janekm
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 04:17:42 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 07, 2018, 04:08:17 amSadly that doesn't get you around the patent pool managed by the SIG, though you may not show up on their radar as quickly.

author: janekm
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 06:27:20 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 07, 2018, 04:24:01 amSure, in your case it sounds unlikely that you'd have too much trouble, and the license fee would be a high burden. I doubt it'd make sense to advertise ignoring the SIG though.And indeed I am enjoying my excellent bookshelf speakers designed by engineers trained by British HiFi companies intended for the domestic marketI hesitated whether to expand more on the options that one can consider regarding the patent pool, but ultimately I'm not in a position to give legal advice in a public forum, and everyone has to decide for themselves what's the most appropriate approach for their business / hobby. It's just important to know that copyright is not the only legal lever the SIG can pull to force licensing fees if they so desire.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 08:49:23 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 07, 2018, 04:24:01 amSo even after spending so much time in the west, you didnt manage to pick up the morality.You go around on this forum, and time after time, you suggest to people to "just break the law, that's how we do it in china"It is sad. Doesn't build the right picture. In fact it damages the relationships, and builds even larger stereotypes.

author: ovnr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 10:00:40 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 07, 2018, 08:49:23 amWell, this is more of a business decision I suppose, and even in the west it seems like morality takes a sharp dive out of a window when there's money on the table.And personally, I find "violating patent-pool IP/patents" about as morally wrong as stepping on a bug. If it's some small boutique mfg? Sure, that's not good. Bluetooth SIG or MPEG group? Fuck 'em.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 10:56:47 am
content: I appreciate blueskull's honesty in expressing his world-views. One doesn't have to agree or disagree with him to recognize that he is a part of the practical world we live in and inter-operate with.For the original poster there may be a simple dodge depending on the size and nature of your product: Use an off-the-shelf bluetooth dongle that you include. (Existing products don't need new licenses, even if you resell them.) Have the customer plug it into your device in the USB port that you provide. Technically, your actual product doesn't have bluetooth, even if it supports it. Heck, you may choose to support wifi dongles as well.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 12:48:05 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 07, 2018, 08:49:23 amThere are three options : no small scale electronics industry with only big companies with cross licensing deals making electronics, breaking the law in blissful (or self-imposed) ignorance or breaking the law with both eyes open.PS. same is true for software of course, everything is patented. Every small engineering solution you can come up with which wasn't already relevant 30 years ago has a good chance of being validly patented. That ignores the endless re-patenting of stuff which was already prior art, which is not necessarily easy to defend against.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 01:31:18 pm
content: Sometimes you can violate a patent without even trying.I used to on a daily basis with this one:https://patents.google.com/patent/US4022227A/en

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 01:33:36 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 07, 2018, 08:49:23 amWhat kind of morality ? By your own definition ? Ok, lets play.If thats the case, I believe Blueskull has to right on behalf of his ancestors, to bill "The West" as your definition, the really long due debt on cloning the Chinese implementation of gun powder, compass, paper and etc.Oh, don't worry, just use the current common market practice and pricing (discounted 50%) + the long-long interest with current rate (discounted by 50% too).Its really agenerousholy gesture just by looking on that discount rate, don't you think ?By your post there, basically you just painted your self at your own forehead a single word .... HYPOCRITE.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 10:16:49 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 07, 2018, 10:05:32 amYou confuse the "west" with the USA. You cannot patent software in the EU. You cannot patent slide to unlock in the EU.Vigilantism is not appreciated, because you break the law. And here, since laws are actually sensible, breaking the law is bad mkay?If you cannot make a business profitable without breaking the law, you shouldn't start businesses, you should mine coal, because that doesn't require to be creative or gives you the burden of thinking. If you really cannot live this way, feel free to go back to a society, which sells their own mother for 2 cents, or or sells poison as baby milk powder. BTW, we will miss you probably, because your awesome gvmt probably blocks 90% of the internet for your own safety. And did you know, that VPN is illegal? Or is this one of those laws that the Chinese think it is OK to break, because I feel like it.Quote from: BravoV on April 07, 2018, 01:33:36 pmIs any of these things patented? Please show me. Was there any claim for this? No? Any laws forbidding it? Here is the thing.The USA has a patent system. It is stupid. And it's the law. I can use whatever is in their system, and not sell the stuff in the US, because I'm not in the US, and their law is not biding for me. I know this is really really complicated, but trust me, it is that way. If I go to Amsterdam, I can smoke weed in certain places, because that is legal there. But I'm not gonna go on an online forum and tell everyone to screw the gvmt. and smoke weed everywhere and be a vigilantly, because that is not legal. IDK why someone has to tell you this.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 10:47:37 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 07, 2018, 10:16:49 pmWhen you tell a patent lawyer (ie. European patent office) he can't patent software he'll just redefine the term software, just like they always try to redefine obviousness in terms of prior art. Scummy liars the lot of them.QuoteIt was never judged on the basis of pure obviousness, Neonode prior art doomed it. Patent judges often howl with the lawyers redefining obviousness as a concept in terms of prior art.

author: bugi
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 11:01:53 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 07, 2018, 10:05:32 amHad to comment on the above...At least what I have learned (about patents around here, on the border of "west"), is that patents are not granted for "ideas" (whether they come from thin air or not), one actually has to have a some kind of proof of concept (actual thing) or similar or otherwise proof that it is not just an idea and can be implemented. (And also the other requirements mentioned in previous comments.)About the "from thin air": sure, some patents are granted for quite easy things (many that don't really deserve patent, but some that actually are really nice and new ideas nobody just hadn't thought about before), but many are results of multi-person teams doing research & development work for years. The latter is definitely not "from thin air" and can be quite expensive, not just for their salaries but the equipment and materials etc. IMHO, such patents deserve the protection. (And I am definitely not talking about the nonsense going through in USA, where apparently anything can be patented, copyrighted and trademarked, and the broken system being abused by companies and trolls etc.)And note, if I remember correctly, the maximum time a patent is valid here is 25 years, and they are not automatically all that long.(Compare that to copyrights, which are automatically the lifetime of the creator(s) and then 70 years after death for those who inherit the copyright...)On the actual topic: nice to know, I had been in the thinking that already compliant/registered/whatnot module would indeed be the shortcut to have bluetooth in a "safe" way in one's product. (I am not about to create any sellable products any time soon, but still). I mean, where does the line go? If I put in a mobile phone inside my device and use its bluetooth, or if I put in some RPi3B and use its bluetooth, or if I use some tiny module which has bluetooth, or if I squeeze in a (small) full laptop... - in which case(s) would I need to pay that silly money to be allowed to use bluetooth logo? In every case?

author: filssavi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2018, 11:39:43 pm
content: I researched Bluetooth licensing, SIG and stuff, last year for a project I was doing and as far as I can tell even if you include a USB dongle to use with your product you still can’t use Bluetooth name or logos on your packaging since you haven’t playedAs for patents, they are fine if used as they should, to protecting innovative designs and ideas, unfortunately no one uses them like that1) scumbag lawyers and business owners always make the patent as broad as possible to be able to do trolling later if the possibility arises2) patents should be granted just for true innovations, but those are rare and far between, as most of what gets “invented” is really only a small (often obvious for people’s that have been in the field long enough) incremental evolutionary change form what was already thereAnd the notion that without patents the world’s innovation would stop is US spread bullshit, take a look at the clothing industry a clothing design or pattern can’t be patented, even in the West, however they still are designing new clothes. There you have only trademark protection but that covers only logos and related not designs/patternsFinally to all the patents champions here I have a single question: before each project you start, you have a lawyer do an exhaustive search of all the relevant (national, EU if applicable and global) patents to be sure you are not infringing on anyone’s patent right?If the response to the previous question was yes how much time and money this cost’s you.If the respionse ti the previous question was no, congratulations you are a massive hypocrite, you (most likely) violate patents just as much as anyone else only you don’t know when you are doing it...

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 12:23:07 am
content: Quote from: filssavi on April 07, 2018, 11:39:43 pmI don't think mentioning another's brand can be limited by that party, at least in the US. You can use other people's brand names, as long as you don't suggest you're affiliated or any confusion about what people are looking at can arise. I don't think you want to defend yourself against the Bluetooth people claiming otherwise, though. They can run you into the ground, even if you're right.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 12:30:28 am
content: Quote from: filssavi on April 07, 2018, 11:39:43 pmhow about giving customers bluetooth dongle as a free gift? and in the product manual.. "if our device is connected to a "external bluetooth device" we will activate tigertooth interface" or... dont mention it at all let the users figure out them self, and then send a miscellaneous email to a forum member about the bluetooth hack and let it spread in forums naturally.then again, why use bluetooth when we can use esp8266 wifi or something?

author: filssavi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 01:46:54 am
content: Again even if the dongle is free, it doesn’t matter if you want to use Bluetooth name and/or logos you have to pay, you could just add support and don’t tell anyone, and let users figure out, that could work for a niche like hackers/engineers, but bluetooth is meant for the general public and in that case you need branding on the package.Also If they really wanted to shut you down all they have to do is she you for infringement off the patents (in US and EU at least)

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 01:52:35 am
content: Quote from: filssavi on April 08, 2018, 01:46:54 amWhat country are we talking about? The US? Like I mentioned in my previous post, it doesn't seem to work that way. You cannot really forbid someone to mention your brand. If you still think they can, it'd be a good idea to list your sources. Otherwise it's just going back and forth endlessly.

author: Miti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 02:36:55 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 07, 2018, 08:49:23 amMorality in the west? Are you kidding me? Where did you live for the last ... forever? In the past people tried to resist mafia but now, they think is the way it should be. I am totally in favor of patents and trademarks for new ideas and inventions. But trademarking the letter "i" or the word "face"? And this Bluetooth BS?It totally crashes any new ideas and any will to do something.The american dream has become the american coma. Sad, very sad...

author: filssavi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 02:49:20 am
content: The Bluetooth word itself is actually a registered trademark so you can’t use it without permission as simple as thatDISCLAIMER: I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice...The only way to be able to use a trademark without license (in the US) is fair use, but in this case I don’t think it applies since1) Bluetooth is not a common term ?so no descriptive fair use)2) Bluetooth markings on the package clearly shows endorsement, since by branding your product as Bluetooth compatible the general public will expect it to be tested as per the Bluetooth standard (which the SIG develops) (so no nominative fair use)So you can mention Bluetooth, you could in theory say that while your product is designed to work with Bluetooth, it has not been tested By the Bluetooth creators, and there is no connection and the product is not guaranteed to follow the standard but A) that doesn’t really inspire confidence B) good luck defending that position in courtAlso if it was that easy why every company pays the SIG, is everyone stupid, or they just like giving away money?I think this state of affairs is really stupid and it shouldn’t be possible for such a mafia to exist, but since corporations have much much more rights than consumers, everywhere, and especially in the US, I don’t think it will change any time soonhttp://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/NotAllIsFair(Use)inTrademarksandCopyrights.aspxhttp://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:4dzion.2.24

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 03:14:50 am
content: Quote from: filssavi on April 08, 2018, 02:49:20 amAgain, it doesn't seem to work that way. You can mention someone else's trademark as long as you don't create the impression that it's yours or that you represent the trademark owner. More importantly, if you buy someone's product and resell it, you are allowed to call it by its name. This means that selling a Bluetooth module and calling it that should be perfectly legal. Using a specific logo could land you in trouble, but just using the name should not. Finally, there's something called compatibility assurance, which means that you're allowed to mention your product works with the product of a competitor. This is again under the restriction that no confusion should arise.Do note that I am not a lawyer and that you should seek professional legal advice before committing to anything.This awesomely American clip explains the mentioning of another's trademark and reselling items:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=CyddWIZfxZIThis article explains how compatibility assurance allows you to mention compatibility with a product:https://www.smartuplegal.com/learn-center/can-i-use-a-competitors-name-in-advertising/"If your product serves as an accessory to another company’s product, you can advertise that compatibility. For example, compatibility advertising is frequently seen with i-Phone accessories – it is permissible for a company that makes i-Phone protective cases to mention Apple and its product the i-Phone in an advertisement about a protective case.But caution should be taken here to ensure that compatibility advertising does not create an impression of endorsement or an affiliation between the two companies. For example, in a case between Stouffers and Weight Watchers, the Court found the following language likely to create consumer confusion: “Stouffers presents Weight Watchers exchanges for all 28 Stouffer’s Lean Cuisine entrees.” According to the Court, the use of the word “presents” between the marks “Stouffer’s” and “Weight Watchers” “creates the impression either that Stouffer owns Weight Watchers, or more likely that Stouffer is presenting these exchanges for Weight Watchers – in other words, that Weight Watchers gave Stouffer the exchanges to publish in the ad.” Weight Watchers Int’l, Inc. v. Stouffer Corp., 744 F.Supp. 1259 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)."

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 11:27:11 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 07, 2018, 10:16:49 pmLol .. typical cheap escape trick when cornered.Look, you're the one who started with the "morality" crap here, and then took a sharp turn and becoming silly paper work ?Tell that to your mom when you're arguing about morality with her when you're stupid and young back then, that it is her fault as she never write it down, just pity your parent.I'm done here, its fun though, thanks for the play.

author: EE-digger
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 06:36:42 pm
content: We've designed quite a few Bluetooth (BLE) products at work, all at chip level.While its true that you could A) not advertise the fact that you are Bluetooth compatible, there is another side B) shall not infringe on Bluetooth IP/Patented technology.If you're a small company (I think under $1 Mil) they cut you some slack, charging only $4k for each product declared, otherwise it's $8k until you are very large.One real zinger is that if you develop a product using deprecated specifications, you get hit with a $25k fee.I've been told face to face by one of the large, un-named testing labs, that it would be unwise to not go through the proper steps if you're a "real" company of some size. They will be looking for you and find you eventually.I like to think that one guy can do it all so while I think the whole fee thing s-cks for small companies and designers, I've convinced myself that the BT SIG is in fact interested on the name Bluetooth being associated with a quality product that works.While we know this isn't always true, by the time you're done with FCC intentional and unintentional radiator testing (ETSI in UK?) and the Bluetooth Qualification process ($8k per year for members) which tests protocol, conformance to defined profiles (and your own custom ones), inter-operability and other tests, you have something that works in most conditions.And so much for standards, however, when you have Apple producing their own "suggested" operational characteristics, like their own preferred advertising intervals, this for IOS. Android is another matter and timing, etc. can vary by version.There is a bright side in that the PTS, Profile Tuning Suite, is only $99 and comes on a flash drive. This provides automated testing of the standard BT profiles (i.e. such as heart rate monitor, battery service, serial protocol, etc. etc.)

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 08:19:28 pm
content: Quote from: EE-digger on April 08, 2018, 06:36:42 pmThe module suppliers pay licensing fees for membership, patent exhaustion applies.That's the story you maintain if they come after you, it should protect you from tripple damages at the very least. There isplentyofprecedent. Of course, patent lawyers, scum of the earth they are are perpetually trying to destroy patent exhaustion as well so who knows how that will go in the end.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 08:28:55 pm
content: Quote from: EE-digger on April 08, 2018, 06:36:42 pmI think the critical difference there may be that you're designing parts at chip level. You want something from them in the form of the qualification, so they can postulate requirements and set limitations. If you have no relationship to Bluetooth other than selling technology that's compatible with theirs, it seems legal to advertise your product as such as evidenced by the links posted before. Having bought third party chips that are Bluetooth compatible should grant you similar rights. You're allowed to resell items and call them what they are.I have no doubt they intend to bully you into submission regardless whether they actually have a claim, but that's another story.

author: TheDane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 09:27:38 pm
content: Thanks for the heads-up!Same thing goes for USB. It costs a lot to have your 'own' Vendor ID, and officially using the USB logo is an added cost/'bonus'"The Vendor ID is US$5,000" + "The licensing fee is US$3,500 for a two year term (this fee is waived for USB-IF members - The annual membership fee is US$4,000.)."http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/I wonder if going 'open source' could be a way? - build/hack/make your own (also a sneaky way to get around UL/CE approval)- but it also creates a LOT of issues - as Dave recently demonstrated in the Trezor Model T Hardware Wallet Review. The Vendor/Product ID suddenly changed to a new one in the InterBiometrics's Vendor ID range (which they own) during a firmware update."WHAT ON EARTH..."~ 9.00 mins in"0x1209 is the Vendor ID originally assigned to pid.codes for allocation to open source hardware projects. All projects using VID 1209 must be licensed using a recognised open source license.""PIDs in the range 0x1000 - 0x1FFF are reserved for devices produced by InterBiometrics, the original owner of this VID."http://pid.codes/1209/http://pid.codes/1209/53c1/- "TREZOR - the first hardware Bitcoin wallet."

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 09:54:57 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 07, 2018, 10:05:32 amPatents expire.Patents are also made public knowledge, this gives you an edge creating ideas and making your own ideas and better designs.As for bluetooth, their whole thing is the Copyright in the Logo and coding. Copyright can be extended beyond ones lifetime thanks in part to Disney...If you think Bluetooth is bad, I not even allowed to show you what HDMI + HDCP (2 separate groups) compliance is like if I wish at any time in the future to become a valid HDMI & HDCP adopter. All I feel I can get away with saying about HDMI rules, you must have so much clearance between connectors, and, have the logo printed at certain heights and positions from your connectors. Even this much can get you an X on your so called report card, which you must correct to continue. Anything more technical & I risk loosing the privilege of paying them a (lets say Bluetooth is cheap) of money to continue.

author: TheDane
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2018, 10:04:44 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on April 08, 2018, 03:14:50 amGuess I have to be real creative naming devices and products in the futureI have my eyes on Texas Instruments and their CC2650 (and similar) Bluetooth chips.- and I plan on making a custom PCB (not using a prebuilt module/launchpad) with the SoC.Any idea if a bluetooth 'open sourced' Declaration ID exists - For the CC2640 there is a pre-qualified "Component" QDID, and the process is almost done.According to TI's wiki becoming a member is free, but releasing an end product to the market costs as getting/obtaining the Declaration ID.http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/How_to_Certify_your_Bluetooth_product

author: Doc Daneeka
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2018, 12:34:10 am
content: Surely, even in USA, 'infringing' a patent or licence agreement is a civil matter between Bluetooth SIG and whoever, nothing to do with being illegal, if the infringed party wants to take action then they can. If they don't find out about or don't care or choose not to take action... so what? If Mr Bluetooth doesn't have the resources or the will to relentlessly persue all those infringers, thats his problem, nothing to do with being illegal...

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2018, 10:22:27 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on April 08, 2018, 11:27:11 amAre you done? I can use anything patented in the USA I want, unless I'm selling it in the USA, because the USA law doesn't apply to me. It is not amoral, as I also dont do anything according to the laws of China, or Russia, or anyone else, unless I go there or sell my product there. Maybe once in your life travel abroad, and realize what crossing a border means.BUT I dont go around and suggest everyone to break the law that applies to them. That is amoral. And be proud of " hey look at me I'm breaking the law and making money, I'm so smart". And say that the future of business is:1.) Grey import, not paying VAT, TAX and import duty, even postage cost (illegal here)2.) Lack of Warranty (illegal here)3.) Not paying to patent rights and copyrights4.) Not having local translation of user guide (illegal here)5.) Not having CE, RoHS, WEEE (illegal here)And say that "it is too complicated" and "there is no profit left if we are not turning into criminals". Too bad, that you need to compete with local businesses that comply with the law.

author: janekm
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 10, 2018, 04:29:12 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 09, 2018, 07:49:37 amI feel very similarly to you with regards to the burden that patents place on innovators (and have had long discussions with someone in a position to influence policy in Europe, though to little avail unfortunately). However I fear you may find yourself feeling a little disappointed when you come back to China, as China's government and companies / research institutes are very much trying to play within the system now:http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2017/article_0013.html("China received more patent applications in 2016 than the combined total for the United States of America, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the European Patent Office.").As you say it may be easier to fly under the radar in China (though saying that, China has customs inspections both entering and leaving the country). But the International patent enforcement regime is very much based on a principle of reciprocity, so you can expect the Chinese government to make a stronger effort to enforce patents in the future.BTW, my impression is that occasionally there is a bit of a delay between actual government policy and what is taught in grade school...