3 ms·

Maybe nothing, but can you afford to prove that in court?

by aoeusnth1 10mo ago

userbinator 10mo ago
If you take the effort to anonymise your contributions, can they afford to try to find you?
- firesteelrain 10mo ago
  It’s not about individual users. It’s about Valve redistributing it.
  - hedora 10mo ago
    This affects 100% of linux boxes with an hdmi port, so valve is making a tiny fraction of the impacted hardware.
    - firesteelrain 10mo ago
      My point was that the HDMI Foundation/Org isn’t going after hobbyists at home. But if a hobbyist were to sell an unlicensed HDMI 2.1 box then the IP holder would likely go after them. In their eyes, in that case, the IP is being pirated. This is very similar to h.264 however however in that case the standard is public, commercial use requires paying a fee. Licensing of the HDMI 2.1 specification requires an NDA for specification testing that Valve is not able to perform in order to say that it is a HDMI 2.1 compliant system. They would be running afoul of the HDMI org’s licensing terms.
bobdvb 10mo ago
I need to post this everywhere: THIS ISN'T AN IP/PATENT ISSUE! This is branding and marketing issue. Anyone can implement the spec, it doesn't need to be a cleanroom implementation. It's almost certain that you could license the patents from the patent holders because HDMI doesn't develop it's own patentable stuff, they just get it from Sony, Panasonic, etc. THIS IS A MARKETING / BRANDING ISSUE. Saying they don't want an open source implementation is just a smokescreen. 99% of the implementation is in hardware anyway.
- IsTom 10mo ago
  So why don't AMD and Valve release ICan'tBeliveit'sNotHDMI2.1 drivers?
- heeen2 10mo ago
  So you're saying they could just make the driver compliant without advertising compliance under the hdmi logo? similar to how e.g. oneplus shipped phones without advertising their higher IPX rating because certification would have cost too much, or chinese electronics supporting "tf card" instead of "micro sd card" but being compatible anyways

Maybe nothing, but can you afford to prove that in court?

userbinator 10mo ago

If you take the effort to anonymise your contributions, can they afford to try to find you?

firesteelrain 10mo ago
It’s not about individual users. It’s about Valve redistributing it.
- hedora 10mo ago
  This affects 100% of linux boxes with an hdmi port, so valve is making a tiny fraction of the impacted hardware.
  - firesteelrain 10mo ago
    My point was that the HDMI Foundation/Org isn’t going after hobbyists at home. But if a hobbyist were to sell an unlicensed HDMI 2.1 box then the IP holder would likely go after them. In their eyes, in that case, the IP is being pirated. This is very similar to h.264 however however in that case the standard is public, commercial use requires paying a fee. Licensing of the HDMI 2.1 specification requires an NDA for specification testing that Valve is not able to perform in order to say that it is a HDMI 2.1 compliant system. They would be running afoul of the HDMI org’s licensing terms.

bobdvb 10mo ago

I need to post this everywhere: THIS ISN'T AN IP/PATENT ISSUE! This is branding and marketing issue. Anyone can implement the spec, it doesn't need to be a cleanroom implementation. It's almost certain that you could license the patents from the patent holders because HDMI doesn't develop it's own patentable stuff, they just get it from Sony, Panasonic, etc. THIS IS A MARKETING / BRANDING ISSUE. Saying they don't want an open source implementation is just a smokescreen. 99% of the implementation is in hardware anyway.

IsTom 10mo ago
So why don't AMD and Valve release ICan'tBeliveit'sNotHDMI2.1 drivers?
heeen2 10mo ago
So you're saying they could just make the driver compliant without advertising compliance under the hdmi logo? similar to how e.g. oneplus shipped phones without advertising their higher IPX rating because certification would have cost too much, or chinese electronics supporting "tf card" instead of "micro sd card" but being compatible anyways