Bluetooth device registration is $8000.

[Day101]

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 claim
If Your Products Are Not Qualified

Products which appear to have not completed the Bluetooth Qualification Process may be impounded by customs’ authorities and will be subject to Bluetooth SIG enforcement actions

Is 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.

[PKTKS]

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 the
real tangible hardware value... (fill names and badges here)..

Since then the whole thing now is paying for paperwork
or paying for a name or brand...  outsourcing work and
profiting the papers...

No surprises seeing the shift of real hardware values
last decades... going to those who actually invest
in immobile assets... fabs

Paul

[langwadt]

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?

[Karel]

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 are
allowed 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 proprietary
Apple chip that contains a key/token in your design which you can only buy from Apple
after signing a contract and follow their rules. (and you need to have your own registered vid!)

[langwadt]

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 are
allowed to use the bluetooth logo.

are you sure? from the BT page:

"Product qualifications cannot be inherited from your supplier, you must complete the qualification of your product for yourself"

[mikeselectricstuff]

From : https://support.bluetooth.com/hc/en-us/articles/360049018272

In order to brand (or re-brand) and sell a Bluetooth® product, your company must join the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) and complete the Qualification process.

Note 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 members

from https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/marketing-branding/brand-enforcement-program/

Brand Enforcement Through Customs Agencies

The Bluetooth SIG maintains relationships with various customs agencies. These agencies monitor imports and will impound shipments that show inappropriate use of the Bluetooth trademarks. If you are notified of a shipment being held in customs for a Bluetooth brand violation, please contact the Bluetooth Brand Manager.

Again, only seems to apply to use of Bluetooth trademarks

So 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.

[NiHaoMike]

Perhaps call it "GreenLink" instead.

[langwadt]

Perhaps call it "GreenLink" instead.

Blåtand

[Day101]

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 $8000


I'm tempted to use waybackmachine to see what they used to say because I think they may be trying to pull a fast one.

[tom66]

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.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology? It's part of the cost of doing business. Smacks of entitlement, sorry.

[NiHaoMike]

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.

[AndyC_772]

Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology? It's part of the cost of doing business. Smacks of entitlement, sorry.

If 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 am absolutely entitled 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 module which has already been paid for, is now also subject to an additional fee.

[langwadt]

Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology? It's part of the cost of doing business. Smacks of entitlement, sorry.

If 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 am absolutely entitled 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 module which has already been paid for, is now also subject to an additional fee.

isn't similar with USB?

[JohnnyMalaria]

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.

[tom66]

isn't similar with USB?

No.  USB may be used free-of-charge provided  you don't use their trademarks and don't need a unique Vendor ID.

[AndyC_772]

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 solution or 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.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology?

1) 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 ?

[JohnnyMalaria]

Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology?

1) 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 ?

If 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.

[nali]

If 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.

Qualification 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.

[Day101]

It's basically brand licensing and enforcement.

I 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.)

[JohnnyMalaria]

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...

[SilverSolder]

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!

[Day101]

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 below

From 2016 - This page says it's only necessary to pay if you use the Trademarks
https://web.archive.org/web/20160403000158/https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/do-i-need-to-list-qualify-my-product

To sell, brand or rebrand a product using Bluetooth technology trademarks, you must complete Bluetooth qualification and declaration/listing to demonstrate and declare your products satisfy the requirements of the Bluetooth license agreements.

This is sometimes referred to as “Qualification”, “Listing”, “Bluetooth Certified”, or “Declaration.” Only products completing both qualification and declaration (listing) may display, feature or be offered under the Bluetooth trademarks.

If you are a retailer or supplier simply selling or distributing another company’s Bluetooth product and not branding or representing the product as your own, you do not need to qualify or declare the product.

But this page from the same time is a little different. See my emphasis
https://web.archive.org/web/20160601122819/https://www.bluetooth.com/develop-with-bluetooth/qualification-listing/declare-your-product

To sell, brand or rebrand a product using any of the Bluetooth trademarks (including the word, Bluetooth), you must Declare that your product(s) satisfy the requirements of the Bluetooth license agreements. This is sometimes referred to as “listing” your product. All members who are implementing Bluetooth wireless technology into a product must complete a Product Listing and Declaration of Compliance (DoC) that references the Qualified Design (QDID) for the product you built, changed, used or branded.

Also 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-fees

Declaration Fee: A Declaration fee must be paid for any new, changed, used or branded Bluetooth product : $8,000

Innovation Incentive Program (IIP) : Start-up companies commercializing their first Bluetooth product can qualify for up to two declarations at a reduced price. The company must have annual revenue of less than USD $1 million and no prior QDLs, EPLs or Declarations. : ​$2,500

Which, 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.

[Zero999]

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.