[Mandatum]

Charging for a Bose product with a Boze name.. You’re going to get sued.

If it was free or open source you could argue you’re not profiting from it, but the way it’s presented..

You’re selling software with the likeness of a brand for the products sold by the brand.

Hope you’ve got a lawyer.

You’re probably lucky that they’re a research driven organisation given the founder donated majority shares for it to MIT with a mission lock clause which means it’s never going to be acquired by a tech giant or private equity. This is good because it means they don’t have for profit lawyers on staff to fuck over people like you. Nevertheless you’re still screwed.

[dubcanada]

The maker has been advertising the product like crazy and even though they have been told this already has yet to change the name.

So more then likely expect this to be taken down in the next few weeks.

I would expect a C&D from a lawyer company any day now, and more then likely they will ask for the domain as well. Since ACPA will classify this as "cyber squatting" since you are charging for the product.

You're also reverse engineering which is a gray zone as it is AND charging for the result.

So I wouldn't be surprised if instead of a C&D they just went straight to lawsuit.

[arcticbull]

I don't take quite the same bearish view on this app.

I suspect the "reverse engineering" here was just looking at Bluetooth LE GATT attributes and values, which you can just look at using something like Bluetility [1]. There appears to be some exemptions to DMCA for compatibility so long as the author didn't copy Bose' code, but IANAL. [2]

The name I think is the more challenging part because it's very close - probably a C&D if it becomes popular to change the name.

[1] https://github.com/jnross/Bluetility

[2] https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq

[crooked-v]

This is a trademark issue, not a copyright one.

[arcticbull]

Agreed.

[kickapps]

In the audio industry, professionals describe Bose as a litigious company - so its more than likely to get litigated. Bose has an army of lawyers on staff for stuff like this.

[threeseed]

In this case it would be completely normal and legitimate for Bose to sue.

You need to defend your trademarks otherwise courts will render them moot.

[CrazyStat]

> You need to defend your trademarks otherwise courts will render them moot.

Sort of.

You need to prevent your trademark from becoming generic.

You also need to go after infringers in a reasonable amount of time, or you may lose the ability to collect monetary damages from that particular infringer at a later time (laches); however, progressive encroachment mitigates this to some extent (if you ignore a minor infringement, you can still sue if the infringement substantially expands, overriding the laches defense).

There's no requirement that you defend every case of trademark infringement, that's just overzealous lawyers who like to get paid a lot of money for sending threatening letters.

In this case Bose could ignore Boze and it wouldn't cause any issues. If Boze later expanded their business in a way that would increase the threat to the Bose trademark (for example, launching their own branded headphones, or directly competing with a Boze iOS app) then Bose could sue at that time under the progressive encroachment doctrine.

All that said,

> In this case it would be completely normal and legitimate for Bose to sue.

is completely correct.

[shp0ngle]

To their defense, Boze _really does_ sound similar to Bose, and it can be called intentionally confusing.

Calling it anything else would be fine.

[johnwheeler]

The tone of this comment is unfortunate. Likely, the app will not make enough money for bose to care, and if it does, he’ll receive a cease and desist. But, “hope you’ve got a lawyer”? Serious? Why the vitriol towards a maker? The subtext of your comment is the OP is stupid. They could just change the name and destroy half your argument.

[aardvarkr]

Unfortunately Bose HAS to care in order to protect their trademark. That’s literally how trademark works. It has nothing to do with how big they are. Lawyers are 100% going to get involved and any of your bizarre posturing to the contrary is ridiculous.

[quonn]

What if they don‘t know officially?

[pwagland]

Trademark has to be actively defended. It is quite unlike copyright in that respect. They can allow you to use the name under generous conditions, but if there is any chance that they could have reasonably known, and this post is definitely proof of that IMO, then they have to defend their trademark against infringement.

[johnwheeler]

Bizarre posturing? That’s a strange choice of words. I didn’t say lawyers wouldn’t get involved, but at any rate, the chance isn’t 100%. I said OP is not likely to be sued.

[stingraycharles]

Maybe not sued, but it’s very likely they will get a “cease & desist” letter soon.

[Mandatum]

Didn't intend vitriol or malice with that statement. And it's not about how much money they make - I suspect they probably at most made $100 off of this, it's the fact they're even charging for it - puts it squarely in the "for commercial gain" camp to the lawyers.

But the OP clearly doesn't have much of a background or worry for this, likely due to inexperience, age or just doesn't care. If they don't care, all the power to them - but I think they should be worried because litigation sucks for anyone.

[bsder]

He missed a step by not calling it "Bozo".

The "consumer confusion" headlines and legal filings would be works of art.

[dcolkitt]

Exactly. Like when Nathan Fielder opened a coffee shop named “Dumb Starbucks”, called it a conceptual art project, and operated for [:strikethrough: months] days, making hundreds of thousands without ever getting sued.

[manarth]

    > "and operated for months"

3ish days: opened Friday evening, closed down on Monday. And gave away the coffee (OK, I'm sure there was a fair amount made from the TV show).

[cluelessmaker]

I have the same feeling. OP might can ask for donations, but charging is way too risky

[xmodem]

I don't think free/paid/donationware matters. There are plenty of both free and paid utilities around for working with AirPods, but they're not from "Appel".

[ghaff]

Noncommercial use can be one factor in copyright fair use. (And it's a factor in a defense. The other party can still take you to court.)

This seems IANAL to be, reverse engineering aside, to be more about trademark. I agree with the other comments that cease and desist now is the best path to hopefully avoid expensive legal bills.

[lioeters]

Apparently there is a company called Appel, Inc.

https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/port-saint-lucie/profile/accountin...

Of course, they're not in software or hardware, so your point stands.

[robbrown451]

He'll just get a cease and desist. No need for lawyers unless he wants to fight it, or if he is making significant money off this app (which I doubt).

Good chance Bose will be aware of the bad publicity it would create to be too aggressive about this, it just would make them look bad for not providing such a thing in the first place. They have to defend their trademark, yeah, but unless this is actually a well known product, they aren't at risk of it being genericized.

[dubcanada]

This isn't a david vs goliath this is a clear violation of trademark law and other laws and borderline illegal.

They reverse engineer a protocol, built an app for it, bought a domain with a single character (s -> z) difference (cyber-squatting) and are charging for it.

[robbrown451]

That is not cyber squatting... it's not like they are trying to get people who accidentally misspell Bose. I don't think they are trying to deceive either, they are making it crystal clear that this isn't a Bose produced app, but they are also making clear that it is FOR Bose devices.

And it isn't a "clear violation of trademark law" either, almost nothing is clear in trademark law until a court makes a ruling.

Regardless, fine, big corporations will do what big corporations will do. I don't think the Bozeapp guy is risking anything other than having to change the name, or possibly pull the app. Big deal. "Hope you hire lawyers" is an extreme comment.

I wish more of us in communities like this would cheer on the little guy, rather than jumping to the defense of big litigious companies (before they have even acted). Reverse engineering a protocol, because the big company didn't bother accommodating your device, seems well within the spirit of a forum called "Hacker News." To me, reverse engineering a protocol so you can add functionality is no different from what hot rodders have done to their automobile engines for a century. You're figuring out how it works so you can make it work more to your liking.

(and yes, in my opinion it is totally a David and Goliath situation)

[jeffreyrogers]

> They reverse engineer a protocol, built an app for it, bought a domain with a single character (s -> z) difference (cyber-squatting) and are charging for it.

None of these things are crimes.

[dragonwriter]

> None of these things are crimes.

Perhaps, but no one is talking about criminal charges. Torts, like the trademark violation here, are still illegal and a basis for legal consequences, you just don’t get prison, death, or other uniquely-criminal penalties for them.

[jonplackett]

You need to at least use a different URL. They are going to pinch that off you in no time.

[densekernel]

Hopefully this isn't the only possible outcome...

Someone at Bose may also be interested in this kind of development.

[p49k]

The best outcome is just to change the name right now and be careful not to violate trademarks and avoid any chance of conflict. They won’t be sued if they hurry to rename it to something generic, change the domain name, change the wording to say “compatible with headphones made by Bose”, include prominent text that says “Bose is a trademark of Bose Corporation and this product is not endorsed or supported by them in any way”, stop using their trademarks incorrectly (some instances are improperly lowercase), etc.

They can even redirect the old domain to the new one for a while. A company like Bose is not going to punish a mistake that was corrected in good faith in a timely manner.

[bellyfullofbac]

Interestingly in OP's tweet (same username as his HN username): [1], he credits [2], who made a Linux CLI for the same functionality, and named it "based-connect". And the CLI-coder got a summer internship at Bose, so it doesn't seem Bose was that mad.

But still, using the name Boze is cease and desist magnet.

Makes me wonder how much work OP did, did he just wrap the CLI around an Electron UI?

[1] https://twitter.com/DannyAziz97/status/1389481926113775616 [2] https://dentonliu.com/projects.html

[jonny_eh]

"Just" develop a nice UI?

[aardvarkr]

That’s a pretty low bar especially compared to reverse engineering a hardware communication protocol

[jsgo]

I don't know if this app works or not, but if there were a piece of software that I could use for my Sony XM2 headphones to cleanly switch between devices, it'd be in "shut up and take my money" territory by default. Was tempted to buy the XM4 headphones because I thought this was what they were advertising with the bluetooth switching, but I've read that feature doesn't work well for the devices that implement it (not the Sony headphones specifically).

So agreeing with everyone, go with a different name. Also selfishly, try and figure out a way to do this with non-Bose headphones and add it.

[h4waii]

For what it's worth, I just replaced my o.g QC35s with the XM4s and get along just fine with it.

I keep it connected to my Pixel 5 and a Pi running OSMC attached to a TV and can pretty seamlessly switch between the devices by playing media on whichever device I want to hear.

[jsgo]

That’s really cool. Is there a way to, in my case, switch from iPhone to PC and back pretty simply or is it a matter of syncing?

[macspoofing]

Is it a Bose product? It sounds like he reversed engineer the protocol for controlling bose headphones. That's OK. He is infringing on the trademark though.

[jermaustin1]

Even if he weren't infringing on the trademark and everything was above board, Bose would likely still sue him as you can sue anyone for any reason. Would they win?, probably not, but does he have the money to make them lose?, definitely not.

[robbrown451]

Is that what you'd do if you were Bose? That seems incredibly foolish. It would waste a lot of money, and get them bad publicity, only to stop someone who actually is making their products more attractive.

A smarter idea would be to send a cease and desist. Maybe before that, a nice email to start with. "Hey, we like what you're doing, but unfortunately you'll have to change the name."

[ransom1538]

"You’re going to get sued."

I am not sure anymore. With twitter and cancel culture around? I can't imagine the legal fees and terrible optics would NOT be worth this. Maybe if this person was Sony with deep pockets. But there is no reason for Bose to chase some app that makes $50 a month.

[devrand]

The problem is the name: it's too close to the protected mark. You need to enforce your trademark or else you weaken the protections afforded by it.

I doubt it would come to a lawsuit though unless the developer resisted. More than likely Bose will send a C&D and the developer will comply. It's a fairly reasonable request in this case.