5 ms·

Unless things changed in the last few years HDMI requires a non-trivial license fee of $5,000 to $15,000, if I remember correctly. There's also a per-unit fee.

Unless things changed in the last few years HDMI requires a non-trivial license fee of $5,000 to $15,000, if I remember correctly. There's also a per-unit fee. If you are not a signatory of the contract you can't buy HDMI chips. How are they getting around that?

haldean 14y ago
Yup, $10k/year and $.15/unit. It doesn't look like it's mandatory, though; the language on the site[0] is really hard to decipher. I imagine that they're not going to prosecute one guy for using a chip in his personal build. Obviously the Raspberry Pi guys are getting around this somehow, though; I'd be curious to know how. [0]: http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/adopter_registration.aspx http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/adopter_registration.aspx
- robomartin 14y ago
  I ran into this about five years ago when doing a design that required HDMI I/O. Distributors in the US such as Avnet and Arrow wanted to see confirmation of being under contract to be able to buy chips. I don't remember all the details. I think you get access to sample quantities just for signing the contract but anything else required payment of the big fee. Also, you couldn't get access to some data sheets without proof of being under contract. I can easily imagine that things in Asia could be very, very different due to, shall we say, how loosely IP rights are enforced there.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Are IP rights enforced at all in China?
- joezydeco 14y ago
  Aren't the chipmakers like Broadcom (for rPi) and Freescale (the i.MX in Bunnie's design) taking the burden of this licensing fee? It would be a lot easier for them to roll the $0.15 into their part costs than hassle their customers with taking care of this licensing.
  - haldean 14y ago
    That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
jrockway 14y ago
This is pure speculation, but my guess is that signal spec licensing sits on shaky legal ground and that the big manufacturers are more than happy to pay up to avoid fighting a lawsuit that they may or may not win. Similarly, those that own the IP for the HDMI spec are unwilling to sue a small fish like the Raspberry Pi foundation, because even if they win, there's not much money to be made. And if they lose, then Samsung and Apple and Dell will realize they don't have to pay anymore, which would amount to a lot of money. DisplayPort is a free spec and can be easily converted to HDMI, so I don't really understand why anyone uses HDMI. HDMI has more bullet points but I've never seen a device that can do anything more than deal with audio and video through the same cable. And Display Port does that fine.

haldean 14y ago

Yup, $10k/year and $.15/unit. It doesn't look like it's mandatory, though; the language on the site[0] is really hard to decipher. I imagine that they're not going to prosecute one guy for using a chip in his personal build. Obviously the Raspberry Pi guys are getting around this somehow, though; I'd be curious to know how. [0]: http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/adopter_registration.aspx http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/adopter_registration.aspx

robomartin 14y ago
I ran into this about five years ago when doing a design that required HDMI I/O. Distributors in the US such as Avnet and Arrow wanted to see confirmation of being under contract to be able to buy chips. I don't remember all the details. I think you get access to sample quantities just for signing the contract but anything else required payment of the big fee. Also, you couldn't get access to some data sheets without proof of being under contract. I can easily imagine that things in Asia could be very, very different due to, shall we say, how loosely IP rights are enforced there.
- jrockway 14y ago
  Are IP rights enforced at all in China?
joezydeco 14y ago
Aren't the chipmakers like Broadcom (for rPi) and Freescale (the i.MX in Bunnie's design) taking the burden of this licensing fee? It would be a lot easier for them to roll the $0.15 into their part costs than hassle their customers with taking care of this licensing.
- haldean 14y ago
  That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

jrockway 14y ago

This is pure speculation, but my guess is that signal spec licensing sits on shaky legal ground and that the big manufacturers are more than happy to pay up to avoid fighting a lawsuit that they may or may not win. Similarly, those that own the IP for the HDMI spec are unwilling to sue a small fish like the Raspberry Pi foundation, because even if they win, there's not much money to be made. And if they lose, then Samsung and Apple and Dell will realize they don't have to pay anymore, which would amount to a lot of money. DisplayPort is a free spec and can be easily converted to HDMI, so I don't really understand why anyone uses HDMI. HDMI has more bullet points but I've never seen a device that can do anything more than deal with audio and video through the same cable. And Display Port does that fine.