5 ms·
If I understand it correctly, you can do that, but you cannot call it "HDMI compliant" or otherwise use the HDMI trademark.
by dark-star 3y ago
If I understand it correctly, you can do that, but you cannot call it "HDMI compliant" or otherwise use the HDMI trademark.
- ZiiS 3y agoSomeone without contracts with the HDMI Forum can probably release a working driver. However, AMD obviously needs to license the logo for their GPU boxes and their legal team have decided this prevents them releasing any source code based on the private specification regardless of what the code is called.
- rickdeckard 3y agoAlso, that someone without contracts would probably need to call it different than "HDMI", because the term itself is trademarked and only licensed to Members (like "Wi-Fi" and "Bluetooth"). So a different term would be needed (like "WLAN" or "BT" is used by non-members)
- franky47 3y agoCall it IDMH, I don't mind, honestly.
- RicoElectrico 3y agoOr IWCH ;-)
- franky47 3y agoTook me a while to get it. https://www.reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsupport/comments/5o67zm/iwch_cable/ https://www.reddit.com/r/talesfromtechsupport/comments/5o67z...
- aethertron 3y agoTrademarks are there to protect consumers from dishonestly represented goods. If I buy some display tech marketed as "HDMI-compatible" but unlicensed, and it works with my other HDMI equipment (say, its maker reverse-engineered the HDMI spec), no one has been defrauded.
- sverhagen 3y agoAs much as we can talk about HDMI here, as it's a name in the public domain, wouldn't someone else be able to use that kind of speech to make a "HDMI-compatible" implementation? "IBM compatible" seemed to be a designation, in the day, that didn't run up against legal trouble? Maybe that's what you already meant by "calling it different than".
- addandsubtract 3y agoHDIY
- BigJ1211 3y agoCould then just call it: HDMIY, no? High Definition Make It Yourself
- missjellyfish 3y agoTrademark law always hinges on the question if a reasonable consumer with reasonable knowledge could be expected to distinguish those trademarks or not. HDMIY would most probably not fly, HDIY would probably. not yet a lawyer, though. edit: I'm also fairly certain that the HDMI forum would fight HDIY tooth and nail, so whoever goes public with that absolutely needs deep pockets.
- echoangle 3y agoI am pretty sure that the term being a trademark doesnt stop me from mentioning it when describing compatibility. Do you think apple could sue me if i release a program and say "This software is compatible with macOS"? As long as I am not impersonating them, using the Logo etc., they probably can not stop me.
- ysofunny 3y agoi'm pretty sure apple would and could sue you if you do that. but it really depends on how much attention you get gotta keep an eye on the nintendo emulator lawsuit.... the war on general purpose computation carries on
- poizan42 3y agoSaying "compatible with <trademark>" is if anything one of the best established examples of nominative use. Like PC-compatibles which IBM had no way of stopping. Apple could try to sue, but the case would get dismissed immediately.
- extraduder_ire 3y agoAny time I've seen that on actual packaging, it does come along with "<trademark> is a registered trademark of <corporation>". Though usually those same boxes use official published logos from <corporation>.
- organsnyder 3y agoApple actually explicitly states that you may do this: https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelines... Though even if they didn't they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they sued.
- Someone 3y agoOf course they could sue you, and so could I. Neither of us would win, though. I because I don’t hold the trademark, they because they explicitly allow you to do that. Like any big company, they have guidelines outlining permitted use. Apple’s page (https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelines...) says: “2. Compatibility: Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark (but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo) in a referential phrase on packaging or promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product or technology, provided they comply with the following requirements. a. The Apple word mark is not part of the product name. b. The Apple word mark is used in a referential phrase such as “runs on,” “for use with,” “for,” or “compatible with.” c. The Apple word mark appears less prominent than the product name. d. The product is in fact compatible with, or otherwise works with, the referenced Apple product. e. The reference to Apple does not create a sense of endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Apple or Apple products or services. f. The use does not show Apple or its products in a false or derogatory light.”
- salviati 3y agoI checked and found this info from the Wi-Fi Alliance [0]: > Select brands and logos are offered license free and intended to be used widely throughout the Wi-Fi ecosystem by Wi-Fi Alliance members, non-members, industry partners, media, and analysts to describe products, technology, network deployments, and operating system support. It sounds to me like anyone could use the trademark "Wi-Fi", since it's listed in the freely available ones. [0] https://www.wi-fi.org/who-we-are/our-brands https://www.wi-fi.org/who-we-are/our-brands
- rickdeckard 3y ago> It sounds to me like anyone could use the trademark "Wi-Fi", since it's listed in the freely available ones. Yes, to describe Wi-Fi as defined by the Wi-Fi Alliance, not to describe anything the Alliance does NOT consider compliant.
- fps_doug 3y ago> AMD obviously needs to license the logo for their GPU boxes This poses an interesting question, maybe some of the hobby-lawyers on HN like to chime in and post heir theories :o) Let's assume they print that Logo on their box, call it HDMI in their Windows drivers, but don't do so in their Linux drivers, while it's still a spec-compliant implementation. Would that pose a potential legal problem, and if so why? If it's the fact that they have access to the official HDMI 2.1 spec, implemented that, but call it something else, which I could imagine they forbid in some contract, would things change if some random hacker with too much time on their hands reversed the protocol by sniffing it, implementing it for the AMD driver (again without calling it HDMI)? Too bad the HDMI forum doesn't feature an email address on their home page, I'd have loved to tell them what I think of them.
- mschuster91 3y ago> Too bad the HDMI forum doesn't feature an email address on their home page, I'd have loved to tell them what I think of them. They actually do at the bottom of [1]. [1] https://hdmiforum.org/about/ https://hdmiforum.org/about/
- luke-stanley 3y agoThanks, I emailed them: # Solutions for the growing open source user base "Hello, I am an AMD user, who uses Linux, and I currently use a small HDMI screen but I am looking to upgrade to a larger screen and I am concerned about the forum's decision to deny AMD's open source HDMI implementation. This decision has led to criticism of the entire HDMI enterprise as rent-seeking, and encourages non-trademarked implementations that weaken the HDMI brand. Linux is only growing in popularity, as people are tired of the advertising baked into Windows, and don't always want a Mac either, I highly suggest a re-think that looks at the rising popularity of open source with Linux, Android, Chrome and so on, to protect the HDMI brand. Sincerely, Luke Stanley"
- megous 3y agoYou don't just sniff a 48Gbit/s protocol as a random hacker. That's not what happens in the real world. A real-time scope that could do that is in the $1mil dollar range. At best a random hacker will reverse engineer the binary driver enough to make something work in some capacity.
- phkahler 3y ago>> However, AMD obviously needs to license the logo for their GPU boxes... It's not just that, it's about playing nice so they can have access to the next version of the spec if one comes along.
- croes 3y agoReminds me of >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 The first letter is H, and the last one is I. https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-powered-by-raspberry-pi/ https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-power...
- bayindirh 3y agoThen, you can't get HDCP keys and HDCP IP on that device, so trying to do that opens cans of technical and legal worms. Not nice. Neither worms, nor HDCP forum.
- redox99 3y agoLack of HDCP is a feature in my eyes.
- bayindirh 3y agoI'd also prefer my cables to carry clear signal unless I encrypt them, but content creators feel that its their duties to protect us from "teh pirates" (I mean their money from us). On a serious note, I don't believe that these technologies prevent a determined person from copying anything. However, I'd rather have all the features on board rather than not being able to use them when required.
- rekoil 3y agoSounds about right, Flipper Devices just released the Video Game Module which has a very recognisable port that is never referred to by it's more common name anywhere. Of course, they don't do HDMI 2.1 or anything advanced like that, but I guess the reason for the name not appearing anywhere is the same as you're discussing here.
- m-p-3 3y agoWould be nice if everyone referred to a "non-compliant" HDMI as HDIY.
- globular-toast 3y agoI can live without the kernel being "HDMI compliant" and coming with an HDMI logo.