4 ms·

Serious question, what if they just ignore the Forum and do it anyways?

mperham 3y ago
They will get sued and lose.
baby_souffle 3y ago
> Serious question, what if they just ignore the Forum and do it anyways? Probably makes it tricky to get HDMI forum's blessing for any future devices. AFAIK, the hdmi standards are public-ish so anybody can create a device that is HDMI compatible but you're only allowed to put "HDMI" on the packaging / marketing material with the forum's blessing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
xnyan 3y ago
HDMI(®) is a trademark as well as a proprietary protocol. The only way to legally use the HDMI label is with approval of the forum.
- toast0 3y ago
  Just call it a 19-bin display connector in that case. Or only put in dual-mode display port connectors (DP++), and let people get passive adapters (maybe bundle them for a bit; you can probably label the passive adapters as HDMI)
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    > Just call it a 19-bin display connector in that case Flipper × Raspberry Pi did exactly that just a couple days ago: https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-powered-by-raspberry-pi/ https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-power... > Video Out port: DVI-D signal in 640х480 px, 60 Hz. The port supports a well-known video standard that we can't name due to copyright limitations :shush: The first letter is H, and the last one is I.
  - 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
    This is pretty much an actual strategy. The academic/crowdfunded ULX3S FPGA development board went with calling it "GPDI" (general-purpose digital interface). Other strategies include labeling the connector with a little TV/monitor icon, calling it "digital video", or just having a little diagram in the marketing/documentation material with it connected to a TV with a vaguely HDMI-shaped cable.
  - 0xedd 3y ago
    It's funny how baby mentally drives these companies. Really, writing "HDMI" is an issue? But if I write HDMl, then that's fine? Come on. Find a real way to generate revenue rather than wasting everyone's time.
    - account42 3y ago
      They don't even need this to generate revenue. The HDMI forum is mostly companies making TVs and other HDMI devices. You'd think they want as many compatible sources as possible.
- account42 3y ago
  ... which in a sane world would not be allowed. We really need laws that protect (adversarial) compatibility.
Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
At best: Get kicked out of the forum and can never support HDMI products going forward. At Worse: Get sued for breaking NDA, lose, pay a metric fuck ton in damages, and get kicked out of the forum and can never support HDMI products going forward.
- amlib 3y ago
  What if _someone_ makes an unofficial patch with HDMI 2.1 support? You could at least compile your own damn kernel with the damn thing supported.
  - Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
    If _someone_ released an unofficial patch for the official OSS driver it might get by, it might get "DMCA'ed", though DMCA might not be the correct takedown method for patent violations (I'm just presuming this _someone_ released only their own code and nothing from AMD, so AMD wouldn't have a copyright claim over the code itself), but hey thats never stopped companies mis-using the DMCA in the past! To file a valid counter notice to a DMCA, that _someone_ would have to give details which the forum could then use to sue the publisher of the patch. But yeah even if the patch some how was made public, and it wasn't nuked out of orbit, ongoing support and bug fixes would be a pain in the ass. (Because as an example, no one from AMD would be allowed to touch the "patch code") <edit> If AMD's planned patch was leaked for example, as AMD had not officially released it, its not yet "open source" and because of that, not yet public, and I'm sure there will be a clause in the terms that state that AMD would have to go on the offensive to get their code removed from any public repos. </edit> When it comes to lawfare, The Forum wouldn't even have to be in the right (in a legal sense), just have a big enough war chest to make everyone else's life a pain in the ass!
    - amlib 3y ago
      Someone else in the comments has suggested that maybe an entity or someone in a country like France where copyright laws are less strict might be able to write and maintain the patch without fear of persecution, but as you said, those guys may somehow still make life a pain in the ass :(
rodgerd 3y ago
"HDMI" is a trademark. You can't claim to offer HDMI in any of your products. The patent pools around approximately all the codecs used for media delivery are heavily cross-licensed. That includes HDMI and HDCP, but also h.264 and h.265. Most likely AMD can't legally use hardware decoding or encoding of any popular codecs at that point. Good luck with game video, streaming, or playing media discs. So it would cost AMD - for example - their entire PlayStation/XBox business. At a minimum.
- dsp_person 3y ago
  What if they just replaced "HDMI" with "Mystery Port" in the specs and marketing materials?
  - account42 3y ago
    They should call it a Highly Dubious Mistery Interface.

They will get sued and lose.

> Serious question, what if they just ignore the Forum and do it anyways? Probably makes it tricky to get HDMI forum's blessing for any future devices. AFAIK, the hdmi standards are public-ish so anybody can create a device that is HDMI compatible but you're only allowed to put "HDMI" on the packaging / marketing material with the forum's blessing.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

xnyan 3y ago

HDMI(®) is a trademark as well as a proprietary protocol. The only way to legally use the HDMI label is with approval of the forum.

toast0 3y ago
Just call it a 19-bin display connector in that case. Or only put in dual-mode display port connectors (DP++), and let people get passive adapters (maybe bundle them for a bit; you can probably label the passive adapters as HDMI)
- notpushkin 3y ago
  > Just call it a 19-bin display connector in that case Flipper × Raspberry Pi did exactly that just a couple days ago: https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-powered-by-raspberry-pi/ https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-power... > Video Out port: DVI-D signal in 640х480 px, 60 Hz. The port supports a well-known video standard that we can't name due to copyright limitations :shush: The first letter is H, and the last one is I.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  This is pretty much an actual strategy. The academic/crowdfunded ULX3S FPGA development board went with calling it "GPDI" (general-purpose digital interface). Other strategies include labeling the connector with a little TV/monitor icon, calling it "digital video", or just having a little diagram in the marketing/documentation material with it connected to a TV with a vaguely HDMI-shaped cable.
- 0xedd 3y ago
  It's funny how baby mentally drives these companies. Really, writing "HDMI" is an issue? But if I write HDMl, then that's fine? Come on. Find a real way to generate revenue rather than wasting everyone's time.
  - account42 3y ago
    They don't even need this to generate revenue. The HDMI forum is mostly companies making TVs and other HDMI devices. You'd think they want as many compatible sources as possible.
account42 3y ago
... which in a sane world would not be allowed. We really need laws that protect (adversarial) compatibility.

Crosseye_Jack 3y ago

At best: Get kicked out of the forum and can never support HDMI products going forward. At Worse: Get sued for breaking NDA, lose, pay a metric fuck ton in damages, and get kicked out of the forum and can never support HDMI products going forward.

amlib 3y ago
What if _someone_ makes an unofficial patch with HDMI 2.1 support? You could at least compile your own damn kernel with the damn thing supported.
- Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
  If _someone_ released an unofficial patch for the official OSS driver it might get by, it might get "DMCA'ed", though DMCA might not be the correct takedown method for patent violations (I'm just presuming this _someone_ released only their own code and nothing from AMD, so AMD wouldn't have a copyright claim over the code itself), but hey thats never stopped companies mis-using the DMCA in the past! To file a valid counter notice to a DMCA, that _someone_ would have to give details which the forum could then use to sue the publisher of the patch. But yeah even if the patch some how was made public, and it wasn't nuked out of orbit, ongoing support and bug fixes would be a pain in the ass. (Because as an example, no one from AMD would be allowed to touch the "patch code") <edit> If AMD's planned patch was leaked for example, as AMD had not officially released it, its not yet "open source" and because of that, not yet public, and I'm sure there will be a clause in the terms that state that AMD would have to go on the offensive to get their code removed from any public repos. </edit> When it comes to lawfare, The Forum wouldn't even have to be in the right (in a legal sense), just have a big enough war chest to make everyone else's life a pain in the ass!
  - amlib 3y ago
    Someone else in the comments has suggested that maybe an entity or someone in a country like France where copyright laws are less strict might be able to write and maintain the patch without fear of persecution, but as you said, those guys may somehow still make life a pain in the ass :(

rodgerd 3y ago

"HDMI" is a trademark. You can't claim to offer HDMI in any of your products. The patent pools around approximately all the codecs used for media delivery are heavily cross-licensed. That includes HDMI and HDCP, but also h.264 and h.265. Most likely AMD can't legally use hardware decoding or encoding of any popular codecs at that point. Good luck with game video, streaming, or playing media discs. So it would cost AMD - for example - their entire PlayStation/XBox business. At a minimum.

dsp_person 3y ago
What if they just replaced "HDMI" with "Mystery Port" in the specs and marketing materials?
- account42 3y ago
  They should call it a Highly Dubious Mistery Interface.