"the patents concern a specific feature of Bluetooth 2.0"
That's not a "feature" of Bluetooth 2.0+, it's a fundamental part of the Bluetooth spec. Without it you couldn't have Bluetooth. So the headline is correct.
That's not a "feature" of Bluetooth 2.0+, it's a fundamental part of the Bluetooth spec. Without it you couldn't have Bluetooth. So the headline is correct.
The key word being "part", so the headline is incorrect.
> Without it you couldn't have Bluetooth.
While it was the main innovation in 2.0, EDR was optional in the spec.
That's a ridiculous argument. Parsing the spec like that is meaningless.
"While it was the main innovation in 2.0, EDR was optional in the spec."
Can't argue with non-reasoning like that.