Bluetooth device registration is $8000.  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 11:59:08 am
content: Bluetooth.com claim that they can demand $8000 to license the use of Bluetooth technology in any product.https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/qualification-listing-fees/They had an "Innovation Incentive Program (IIP)" which was "only" $2500, but they quietly stopped it In February 2020.https://www.bluetooth.com/iip/They claimIf Your Products Are Not QualifiedProducts which appear to have not completed the Bluetooth Qualification Process may be impounded by customs’ authorities and will be subject to Bluetooth SIG enforcement actionsIs this true? I thought patent holders have to raise court proceedings in order to demand a 'fair' license.Can anyone shed any light on this? What really happens?ANT+ is licensed at $0.08 per module, which seems far more reasonable.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 12:11:34 pm
content: There was a time were the hardware matters most...But due to the absurd success of these "certification" and"registration" and licenses in which a paper replaces thereal tangible hardware value... (fill names and badges here)..Since then the whole thing now is paying for paperworkor paying for a name or brand... outsourcing work andprofiting the papers...No surprises seeing the shift of real hardware valueslast decades... going to those who actually investin immobile assets... fabsPaul

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 01:07:29 pm
content: it is actually required to make something work with Bluetooth or is it in reality only required to say it is Bluetooth and put the Bluetooth logo on it?

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 01:16:14 pm
content: In one of our projects we use a certified bluetooth module with integrated pcb antenna.It comes with firmware that uses the vid and pid from the manufacturer of the module.If you don't change the vid and pid, you don't need a bluetooth registration and you areallowed to use the bluetooth logo.However, we decided to register our own vendor id and we had to pay for the registration.The problem is, most tablets and cellphones only support bluetooth and wi-fi.It's a pitty that they don't support some other radio protocols.It's even more "fun" if you want to support Apple. Then you need to put a proprietaryApple chip that contains a key/token in your design which you can only buy from Appleafter signing a contract and follow their rules. (and you need to have your own registered vid!)

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 01:24:39 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on February 19, 2021, 01:16:14 pmare you sure? from the BT page:"Product qualifications cannot be inherited from your supplier, you must complete the qualification of your product for yourself"

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 01:53:05 pm
content: From :https://support.bluetooth.com/hc/en-us/articles/360049018272QuoteNote the use of the word "Brand", not manufacture, market, distribute.That would seem to imply that it only relates to Bluetooth branding, not functionality.Everything else on that page only applies to Bluetooth SIG membersfromhttps://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/marketing-branding/brand-enforcement-program/QuoteAgain, only seems to apply to use of Bluetooth trademarksSo if you;re not a SIG member, shipping BT product without a trademark seems to be fine. Maybe we need an equivalent to "TF card", used to sidestep SD card trademark issues.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 02:19:38 pm
content: Perhaps call it "GreenLink" instead.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 02:27:51 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on February 19, 2021, 02:19:38 pmBlåtand

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 02:31:23 pm
content: In various places they say things like"All products that use Bluetooth® technology must complete the product qualification process. It ensures global interoperability and further strengthens the Bluetooth brand."https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/"ALL Bluetooth® Products Must Be Qualified""Product qualifications cannot be inherited from your supplier, you must complete the qualification of your product for yourself"https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/And when you look at the "Qualification Process with No Required Testing" it says you need to pay the declaration fee of $8000I'm tempted to use waybackmachine to see what they used to say because I think they may be trying to pull a fast one.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 02:35:38 pm
content: A similar issue exists with SD cards, to be technically interoperable with SD cards you need to pay a licencing fee of some $3,000 from last memory.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 02:39:19 pm
content: Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology? It's part of the cost of doing business. Smacks of entitlement, sorry.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 02:50:22 pm
content: Perhaps a workaround would be to get an off the shelf module that can plug into an expansion port on the product? One example would be a company making PCs offering a Bluetooth option which just adds a USB Bluetooth adapter for the user to install.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 03:09:48 pm
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on February 19, 2021, 02:39:19 pmIf I build a product around an ARM microcontroller, I don't have to register my product with ARM and pay them again.I've already paid for the component, and the cost of that part includes the production cost of the silicon, a profit margin for the silicon manufacturer, and license fees for any and all technology included within that part. So yes, I amabsolutelyentitled to use that part.Similarly, if I purchase a Bluetooth module from a certified supplier, I expect to pay a price for that module which covers its production cost plus any and all licence fees required to legally use it.The issue here seems to be a (new?) requirement that each individual product type, that incorporates a Bluetooth modulewhich has already been paid for, is nowalsosubject to anadditionalfee.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 03:21:19 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on February 19, 2021, 03:09:48 pmisn't similar with USB?

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 03:22:24 pm
content: OP didn't say anything about that. Just seems upset at having to pay money for something. The devil is in the details and I wouldn't rely on what's on a webpage to be the authority.If OP thinks ANT+ is fairer at $0.08 per device, then choose that. But it will become apparent that what you get is what you pay for.I dislike BT - I've never had any BT device that "just works". To me, it's possibly the worst wireless communication system there is. It's prevalence requires that it is controlled strictly. Otherwise, other developers wanting to avoid paying will put crap products out there and just make the entire system unusable.I agree that if I developed a product was based around something like the RPI but which had BT, then I would certainly not expect to have to pay $8000. But I'd investigate first and no rely on public-facing webpages of summaries.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 03:27:32 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on February 19, 2021, 03:21:19 pmNo. USB may be used free-of-charge provided you don't use their trademarks and don't need a unique Vendor ID.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 03:32:32 pm
content: I agree, it's unclear where the requirement to pay the fee begins and ends.If I were to roll my own BT solution, using a generic 2.4G radio and my own software stack, it would make perfect sense to have to pay a licence fee for the technology, and go through a certification process to say "yes, this product that claims BT compliance really is BT compliant". The fee of $8k would be small change compared to the cost of developing such a solution anyway.However, smaller volume manufacturers don't do that. They buy pre-assembled, pre-certified modules that include all the RF circuitry and software stack, and present a simple API over (say) a UART interface. These are relatively inexpensive (though nowhere near as cheap as the per-unit cost of a home grown solution), and their main selling points are the lack of need to develop a complete wireless solutionor certify it. The compliance and certification requirements apply to the module; it's the module that's the BT product, not the device that incorporates it.If there's now been a change in the rules which would indeed mean that a product incorporating an already-certified 3rd party module must now itself be certified as a whole, for a fee, then the OP is completely right to complain and so would I.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 04:01:41 pm
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on February 19, 2021, 02:39:19 pm1) Because you're paying the people you buy the Bluetooth module or chipset from. The purchase of that should convey all licensing needed to sell the product containing it.2) Is it reasonable to be expected to pay exactly the same fee to ship ten products as ten million ?

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 04:10:39 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on February 19, 2021, 04:01:41 pmIf you are buying a BT chip that needs additional electronics to function as a final product, then you are on the hook for making sure it complies with the standard. Just because the chip itself does what it is supposed to correctly, doesn't mean the final product will comply. And if a selling feature of your product is that it is Bluetooth compliant, you need to show it. But if you incorporate something like an SoC that has BT but you don't use it, then you certainly shouldn't have to pay for that. Perhaps that's why I've only come across one FPGA vendor that integrates BT.

author: nali
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 04:22:32 pm
content: Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on February 19, 2021, 04:10:39 pmQualification doesn't just involve compliance, there is also the "End Product Declaration". So if I use a certified module (which will have the compliance costs already amortized in the price) in my product I'd still have to declare and pay fees to take the product to market. It's basically brand licensing and enforcement.

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 05:05:41 pm
content: Quote from: nali on February 19, 2021, 04:22:32 pmI think it might be an attempt to trick people into paying a completely arbitrary fee. I think they changed their website to widen the definition beyond branding.AFAIK intellectual property disputes are normally settled with a "reasonable" license fee. Sometimes by agreement prior to sale, but more often retrospectively. And the intellectual property holder needs to raise a case against an infringer.Just as I would have to raise a legal action against anyone who infringes any of my intellectual property. (A very very costly process, especially considering most companies that you attempt to raise litigation against simply disappear, declare bankruptcy etc. and then reincorporate with a different identity, or their cousin does etc.)Perhaps this is what they're trying to circumvent.I believe they previously only levied a charge for use of their Trademark, to register a new company ID, or to do new product testing.None of which I need.The cost is unreasonable so I'm weighing up whether to switch to the Nordic Shockburst protocol and ditching my plan to release an App. But I need to double check that I won't fall foul of FCC regulations (since that's another gigantic money pit.)

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 05:18:13 pm
content: I really think you should contact someone knowledgeable and ask if all of this relates just to a product that you intend to carry the Bluetooth brand or if it covers any product using the technology.BTW, if you think $8000 is outlandish, I was going to develop some video editing software for which I needed the specification for mpeg2 (or maybe mp4, it was 15 years ago). I would have had to pay $20,000 just to get the documents...

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 05:41:45 pm
content: If Bluetooth worked reliably and was stable, it might be worth paying for. As it is, I would choose a piece of physical cable over a Bluetooth connection!

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 08:08:06 pm
content: Looking on waybackmachine I can see that their old wording repeatedly referred to using the Bluetooth Trademarks. But it's a bit contradictory and confusing. See belowFrom 2016 - This page says it's only necessary to pay if you use the Trademarkshttps://web.archive.org/web/20160403000158/https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/do-i-need-to-list-qualify-my-productQuoteBut this page from the same time is a little different. See myemphasishttps://web.archive.org/web/20160601122819/https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/declare-your-productQuoteAlso on the fees page it seems to suggest ANY product which uses Bluetooth technology, not just one that uses the Trademarks.https://web.archive.org/web/20161229233907/https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/qualification-listing-feesQuoteWhich, again, suggests that it's "Bluetooth products". And I have no intention of using the name Bluetooth (partly because most people associate Bluetooth with grief)I've asked my contact at my testing house and he said he's not heard anyone else whinging about the $8000 fee, and he spends all day talking to engineers, directors etc But he wasn't sure so he's referred it to their guy who does the Bluetooth testing.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2021, 10:39:56 pm
content: What does the law say? Are any of the patents still in place, or have they all expired by now? If they've expired, then there's nothing they can do to stop you. The only issue will be using the trademark.Otherwise, if you can't afford it, there's not much you can do, other then perhaps use a USB and the customer will just have to use a Bluetooth dongle.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2021, 01:31:33 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on February 19, 2021, 04:01:41 pmIn general you have to check what the license of the module / chip says regarding licensing c.q. whether the license fee for using the technology has been paid or not. It could be the module / chipset passed testing but the fees to use the technology in a product has not. For chips this is probably not the case where it comes to Bluetooth (and similar protocols) because the external RF components are part of the test requirements.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2021, 01:39:17 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on February 19, 2021, 04:01:41 pmYes, because that's the license model - unlimited royalty-free. But you can choose a royalty-based license if you wish (e.g., ANT+). You have the choice. Both options are "reasonable". If you don't like what's on offer, find a different solution.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2021, 04:15:01 am
content: None of this is new. The Bluetooth people will threaten to sue you unless you pay their exorbitance fees. I know - it happened in a company I worked with. They use BOTs to surf the web to find products that use the Bluetooth symbol or word.The problem with Bluetooth is even if you use a certified Bluetooth module in your product - bad luck, you have to pay - for each and every product variant.These greed mongers have made it very punitive for small startups. They simply do not care. They want their money. "Truth, Justice and the American Way", each of which is a farce.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2021, 04:36:23 am
content: And of course they have a practical monopoly on short range radio interfaces, seeing as every laptop, phone, and tablet out there has Bluetooth..

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2021, 10:10:54 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on February 20, 2021, 04:15:01 amDo you know if you had to pay for using the Trademark or for using the technology? Was a lawyer consulted?QuoteNot if it's the same Bluetooth part I think.https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/"It may be possible to complete product qualification by adding the product as a new model to one of your existing qualifications."

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2021, 11:05:41 am
content: If you are complaining about $8k for BT, you should know that a minimal FCC or CE/RED intentional irradiator certification will cost much more - and yes, these will be required to your whole product. Such things can be cost minimized if you use a pre-certified protocol stack or module. Nothing really new at the horizon there - this is part of what is called NRE, or non-recurring engineering fees of a product.I would follow the advice of others and consult with a lawyer or a certification company to be sure of this. Also some silicon vendors provide some guides to navigate all this. One example for BLE:https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/swra601To play on the big leagues you need big money. This is true for many things. I come from an era where BT/WLAN/USB certification was so intricate that nobody would even answer the phone if you didn't commit to at least 100k units. Nowadays you can buy modules and dev kits on the retail market to make your projects.

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2021, 01:10:01 pm
content: I think Imightjust need EMC testing.For the first version I'm only trying to launch in the USA. So there's no RED or CE.Online sales only so I don'tneedUL for large stores (Walmart etc.)My devices both use pre-certified FCC modules so I think I might just need to do some paperwork to register with FCC, show the right label on the product.There's no power supply. One device has a coin cell and the other is either 3xAA battery powered or USB (<100mA). So I think it's not a fire risk. I've added protection (2 poly fuses) on my power lines which I think might be sufficient. I will get this checked.If I need more testing then I will get it (I have money) but I am definitely avoiding unnecessary costs especially if it can be better spent on advertising (or my kids)I thought Bluetoothmightbe $2500, and thought it might only apply to use their Trademarks (which I wouldn't show). But now that I've realise it might be $8000 I want avoid it if at all possible. And that includes ditching Bluetooth for Version1 (if the Nordic Shockburst protocol is also ok with FCC.)

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2021, 01:23:14 pm
content: I wonder what it would be considered if you use a module that can use Bluetooth or some proprietary protocol and ship the devices with firmware that only enables the proprietary protocol. Then have an "unofficial community developed" firmware that also enables Bluetooth. (I recall that the popular NRF protocol is close enough to BLE that with a bit of hacking, you can get a NRF module to send packets that a BLE device could receive.)

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2021, 02:09:16 am
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on February 20, 2021, 11:05:41 amTrue, but there is more to it. It depends on the application. You can use a re-certified BLE module, but you need special code for the FCC SAR testing to continuously transmit carriers. Also, for the CE/RED testing, if you are using more than one transmitter or receiver, you have to do co-located radio testing, which can be very expensive. The EU also states that if you change you enclosure, you have to repeat the testing. You can use off-the-shelf modules (including antenna), but as soon as you use it in another enclosure, you have to do a lot of testing.If you use a BLE module with an external antenna, make sure to put a 0 zero ohm resistor or a pi network between the module and the antenna, because the test house will need direct access to the module. Also make sure you can send commands to the module either using bridging code in the MPU or use a UART or I2C interface. R & D people often forget this and they need a re-spin to make the product testable for compliance.For some reason the meddling EU wants to make sure your product works well on its own, even with RF reception. The FCC is a lot more sensible. They don't care about how well your product works, as long is it does not cause interference and is safe.It is utter stupidity, almost to a criminal level, that a $5 AM radio receiver imported into the EU has to have $50k to $100k worth of testing just for it to be approved for sale in the EU. This wipes out all small players/startups who want to get their product into the EU.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2021, 05:21:41 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on February 20, 2021, 01:23:14 pmhttps://dmitry.gr/?r=05.Projects&proj=11.%20Bluetooth%20LE%20fakery...and of course a suitable SDR should be able to do it too.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2021, 07:32:15 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on February 20, 2021, 04:15:01 amAs I understand it, you only have to pay if you change modules. If you use the same (certified) module in multiple products you just register the new product against the module - don't have to pay a fee. If you put a new module in then you have to pay again.

author: RawCode
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 12:06:58 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on February 21, 2021, 02:09:16 amI totally agree.I was thinking (and dreaming) about an audio product that uses USB connection, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, for an hypothetical startup. But now that I'm reading this thread, I'm quite demoralised.How am I supposed to develop, or even sell, a product if I have to pay all the regulatory and licencing stuff? How am I supposed to pay all that money if I have a "student" budget?I'm not saying that regulatory stuff and licensing is stupid, but if I use a pre-built module, paying an extra to have a "pre-certified/licensed" model, why in the world should I perform another certification and licensing process? What is the point of having a "pre-certified/licensed" module?I'm seriously giving up about the idea of having a small company/startup of audio products if there is a wall of several thousand of euros to overcome.I wonder if all the products that you can find on amazon typing "bluetooth" or "wifi" have a proper certification/licensing.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 03:50:16 pm
content: Quote from: RawCode on March 01, 2021, 12:06:58 pmYou're not, is the answer... you are supposed to get a nice job at a big corporation and be a productive employee, take home a good pay, live a good life, and retire with a stable pension savings fund.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 04:18:16 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 01, 2021, 03:50:16 pmtbf if an $8000 fee is what prevents you from making a startup you probably shouldn't ......

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 04:27:45 pm
content: The older one gets, the more one realizes that there is a very long line of people that want a "cut" of whatever you do... like civilized versions of Mafia protection rackets!

author: bingo600
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 04:47:40 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on February 19, 2021, 02:27:51 pmOr "King Harald"

author: RawCode
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 05:19:30 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on March 01, 2021, 04:18:16 pmWell, you're right.But if you consider that you have a 50/100 k€ wall to overcome, between measurements, certifications, licensing and bureaucratic stuff, without even selling a unit of product, well that's a big wall.As a small player/hypothetical start-up, it's just demoralising.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 06:00:38 pm
content: Quote from: RawCode on March 01, 2021, 05:19:30 pmPerhaps "sobering" is a better word? All start-ups need money and it usually hurts because it comes from your bank account and not an employer's.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 06:14:43 pm
content: Our "free" markets actually have considerable barriers to entry for products where the "big players" are involved.If you want to develop and market a new product on a small scale where there is significant risk that the product doesn't "take off", it is much better to stay away from licensed technologies altogether. You can do a lot with open standards like Wi-Fi, for example, without paying anything to anyone (as long as you use an approved module obviously). You can always add the expensive stuff later if things take off.Use your creativity to work around / avoid the problems. That's what makes you an entrepeneur!

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 06:22:53 pm
content: I suppose it depends on the design but for me it's not 50-100K at all.There's no FCC testing, the modules are pre-certified. No need for UL testing, Sell direct via Amazon, shopify, ebay etc (not walmart etc). It's low power so there's no fire risk. Don't sell to Europe or rest of the world for v1. No power supply, just a $2 USB cable. EMC testing is cheap (https://www.sunfiretesting.com/)Right now I'm expecting to hack out Bluetooth and use Shockburst instead. ~1 weeks effort I reckon. And if I get time (LOL) then I'll send data to smartphone via NFC.I also need to file provisional patents (UK is best) this allows me 18 months to file for the rest of the world.Aside from lost earning and the cost of making the prototypes I'm looking at less than $10K including non-refundable engineering fees for ABS moulds etc.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 06:33:31 pm
content: Quote from: Day101 on March 01, 2021, 06:22:53 pmYou need to understand the patent aspect better.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/764953/ipo-foi-2018-564-provisional-patents.pdfQuoteThis is very different than a US provisional patent application.I assume you are also alluding to the PCT process for rest of world. It's expensive. You need to pick one or two countries. If you choose the EU, you still have to pay for each member state you want protection in. Then there's the annual maintenance fee which for EU countries is about USD2,300 per country per year.On top of that, you need to pay a knowledgeable patent attorney to make sure you do it right.

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 06:48:03 pm
content: Yes, I have a patent advisor in the UK.Filing for the rest of the world requires MONEY. which I can only get by selling some units. And defending infringements is much much more expensive again.If the sales in the US justify the costs then I will get the lawyers to file in each jurisdiction. But a UK provisional patent gives 18 months and is a fraction of the cost of US etc.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 06:52:20 pm
content: US fees can be substantially reduced if you quality as a "microentity". My fees were 25% of the standard ones. e.g., filing fee was $80.https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Patent%20Fees

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 09:11:47 pm
content: Quote from: Day101 on March 01, 2021, 06:22:53 pmso trying to stay under the radar and hope no one complains, that's one way of doing it

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2021, 09:26:11 pm
content: Am I flying under a radar? Have I missed something? I’m not sure what you’re saying

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2021, 12:32:07 pm
content: RE bluetooth.I read all the documents.My conclusion is that I cannot find anything that forces me to do the bluetooth qualification process, or to list my product. So actually, I wouldn't need to pay the $8000.(but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to remove bluetooth from V1 just in case.)

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2021, 03:23:51 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on March 08, 2021, 02:29:10 pmFlying under the radar is a time honoured principle when fighting a much larger enemy. Avoid using protected trademarks, whatever you do - it is easy to scan for those words in advertisements and web sites, and the processes are automated on many of the big platforms (youtube, ebay, Getty images, etc.).

author: Day101
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2021, 08:05:20 pm
content: Yes, you're right. I would not mention their trademarks etc and they would literally have to buy my product and analyse it's signals to determine if it was using bluetooth or not. Which I doubt is worth their time.

author: karpouzi
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 01, 2021, 03:31:30 pm
content: Are there any reports of companies being penalized when they didn't use Bluetooth trademarks? Bluetooth enforcement appears based on trademark law, directed against Bluetooth-branded products via customs seizures and trademark lawsuits. What power have they shown over a company which just omitted their logo and used the term "BLE"?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2021, 11:21:32 am
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on February 19, 2021, 05:41:45 pmBluetooth itself is stable. Many software implementations are not. For what it’s worth, I’ve been using Bluetooth since 2003 without any problems. But it’s always been on macOS and iOS, whose Bluetooth support is very robust. It seems to me that the people who’ve complained to me about Bluetooth being unreliable have all been Windows or Linux users, so I guess those software stacks aren’t as good.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2021, 03:18:19 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on November 02, 2021, 11:21:32 amA few years ago a friend gave me an old mac mini to play (IIRC a 2008~9 model) and that was the most striking difference that I could see when comparing to similarly equipped contemporary PCs of the same era that ran Windows XP: the bluetooth functionality was not only rock solid, but it was incredibly smooth to setup and pair - light years ahead of what the PC devices had.IME it's been a few years now that not only Bluetooth Classic but also BLE (with some hardware restrictions) can be setup with the same ease on multiple platforms (Windows 7/8.1/10, Ubuntu 18.04/20.04, Chrome OS, Android), but indeed Apple was there much earlier in the game.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 01:20:57 am
content: Bluetooth needs to be made as easy to understand (affordance) and as easy to use as a headphone jack...It is far from that level of ease of use even on Apple products.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 06:40:12 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on November 03, 2021, 01:20:57 amIt’s about as close as is technically feasible: hold one gadget next to the other, it asks if you want to pair, you tap “connect” and you’re done. (Look for videos demonstrating how AirPods pairing works.)

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 01:38:41 am
content: If the "connect" point was made much smaller... so there was no doubt that when you touched the devices "connect prongs" together, you wanted to connect... it would work just like a headphone jack!

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 04:47:08 am
content: Quote from: Day101 on February 20, 2021, 10:10:54 amA company I once worked for did. They got a nasty legal letter from Bluetooth's lawyers. The company ended up paying $8K for each product that used the Bluetooth logo on it. Total bill was quite massive (maybe $50K to $100K - I can't remember exactly), but they did pay.I do designs that include Bluetooth Classic or BLE for clients, and I warn them of the risk of having to pay a $8,000 license fee. I leave it to them (the product owner) to do research themselves and consider paying accordingly.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 07:07:14 am
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on November 04, 2021, 01:38:41 amTry, then, separating the plug from the headphone jack after connecting…

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2021, 05:51:53 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on November 04, 2021, 07:07:14 amI could live with the "connectedness" state toggling every time I touch the "connection spot"... You know it makes sense