Slashdot Mirror
DisplayPort-To-HDMI Cables May Be Recalled Over Licensing
Hugh Pickens writes "PC Magazine reports that the licensing company overseeing the HDMI specification has confirmed that existing Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapters which are designed by several cable makers and sold by several PC OEMs, are apparently illegal and could be recalled. According to Charlene Wan, director of marketing for HDMI LLC, any cable that does not include HDMI connectors on both ends violates the specification. 'The HDMI specification defines an HDMI cable as having ONLY HDMI connectors on the ends,' says Wan. 'Anything else is not a licensed use of the specification and therefore, not allowed.' That apparently includes Apple's mini-DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapters, which are sold by Belkin on Apple's Web site. However a representative for Belkin denies that the cable it sells on Apple's Web site is illegal. 'Essentially, the product you mention in your post is not out of compliance because it is just an adaptor and not a cable,' the representative wrote in an email. 'We do not sell a cable with a male Mini-DP and male HDMI port, which is what falls out of compliance with the spec. HDMI does recognize a product that has a Mini-DP connector and HDMI receptacle with an internal active circuitry as it falls into the definition of a source device.' There may also be a glimmer of hope, in that HDMI Org understands that there is a need for this type of cable: 'We do recognise that there may be a market need for a cable solution rather than a dongle solution. However, at this time, there is no way to produce these cable products in a licensed manner.'"
Nothing irks me more than technology being crippled for no good reason. Yay for lawyers and IP nonsense!
Produce whatever cable you want, and call it HMDI.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Who wrote such a narrow-minded license and for what purpose? I would like how they thought this would benefit end-users.
It smells like greed, incompetence and arrogance.
What about cables that go from DVI to HDMI?
I say arrest those cable pirates stealing HDMI connectors without paying for them.
and show a pic of the ends without further explanation.
Computer users "get" cracks, hacks, and routing around stupidity.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The licensing company is in error. These are not Display Port to HDMI cables, they are bananas. One end of the banana was equipped to be able to link up to a High Definition Multimedia Interface, the other end was equipped to link up to Apple's display port. Cabling was run between these two ends and the banana was removed.
It's still a banana, though.
You're welcome.
We want you to have to buy a cable AND an adapter, (at the usual 800% markup from cost of materials) so we can collect license fees twice.
You sure this isn't Sony we're talking about? Reminds me of their "iLink" cables. Apple refused to license them to use the term "firewire" because they insisted on using a proprietary connector because they wanted to be the exclusive source of hyperpriced firewire cables for their camcorders. This whole game has become very tiring.
The only thing I've heard about this whole thunderbolt mania that I like is that the cables are actually more than just straight through wires with particular connectors on the ends priced like there's actual expensive parts in them - these cables actually have numerous active components at both ends. Still overpriced, but not nearly as much of a ripoff.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Nothing irks me more than technology being crippled for no good reason. Yay for lawyers and IP nonsense!
... or is my statement redundant?
As annoying as that is, at least I understand the commercial desire to maximize profit.
Nothing irks me more than our freedoms being crippled for no good reason. Yay for legislators and political nonsense!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
DisplayPort consortium is in competition with hdmi consortium, they try to pull this shit all the time. USB consortium did the same.
Just hurry up and write the spec to license this device, then license it ASAP! It will immediately become a revenue source. Duh!
Willie...
ssia
nice.
have had them for at least 5 years now.
a bit slow on the up-take?
sorry, but you just LOST due to not protecting your bullshit idea well enough. 5 years. pfffft!
btw, the hdmi 'designers' are the laughing stocks of the industry. if you have an hdmi connector committee member in your employ, you should fire him. he did a really bad job and we can all see that. the connector falls out without any regard, there's no lock, the cable is way too thick and there are more connectors than needed. oh, and mixing audio and video and muxing them in a DRM fashion? you should be hung up and then killed. then shot. just for ruining the dvi protocol (dvi had no DRM before hdmi came along). audio and video could easily have been on separate wires. but that would have been too consumer friendly!
you bastards. you all suck, you DRM hdmi fuckheads.
and this latest news just makes you look even sillier.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
...determines what kind of device it is, instead of what's actually inside?
That's what it sounds like, honestly, the HDMI folks are claiming that you can't have an extended-length adapter w/ a flexible section, as they feel that falls 100% of the time under their 'cable' clauses, not the 'source device' clauses.
Oh wow, sorry about that, I'll be sure and send my unlicensed cables right back. I wouldn't want to be in any violation. Of couse I'll pay for shipping. It's the Fanbois Manifesto, after all.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
MUUUUAHAHHAHAHAH
. Sincerely yours,
The Lawyer
If something is patented, unlicensed means illegal except in very limited circumstances. To which of these very limited circumstances do you refer?
How do we write an open spec, and get it adopted? HDMI needs to go.
So... did I get that right, the whole fuss is about calling it a "HDMI cable" while it fails to meet spec? Give it a different name. The customer won't care as long as it works.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why would I care that a cable I have that works safely has been recalled due to some conflict between some corporations to whom I owe nothing, now that I bought mine for myself? I'm certainly not going to stop using it, and absolutely not going to go to any trouble to send it back. Indeed, now that it can't be gotten anymore, it's even more valuable to me, given its scarcity. I'd probably sell it to someone else who values it even more than I do, for more than I paid for it new.
If these lawyers start telling me that I don't own even the physical goods I buy, because of some licensing agreement upstream between parties with whom I never agreed to any ongoing terms, then those lawyers are simply thieves.
--
make install -not war
This seems like a good way to make yourself obsolete overnight. Someones got an adapter so their hugely popular device can still use your aging cable spec... but you come along and say NO! You can't use our cable! In a fight over which cable spec to use whome do you think will win? Apple who somehow even got Auto manufactures to include ipod docks on stock cards? Or HDMI LLC who will, most assuredly, not exist in 20 years irrelevant of how this fight turns out?
My question is, if these displayport-HDMI cables are not within the HDMI spec, and thus not licit in the eyes of the HDMI people, by what mechanism does that make them illegal?
Does the HDMI consortium have some sort of patent pool, licensed only to conformant devices(in which case everybody except grey market Chinese cheapies is screwed), or is it merely the HDMI trademark, in which case a bunch of packaging will have to be redone, possibly even some cables with moulded symbols/text ground down or destroyed; but the HDMI consortium won't be able to do fuck-all about the sudden appearance of "mini-displayport Digital AV adapters" which promise to "Connect your mini displayport device to your HDMI(TM) compatible display*" (*All trademarks are property of their respective owners)...
If the HDMI guys have some patent juice behind them, things could get rather ugly. If this is simply a trademark thing, they are being quite petty; but they also have pretty limited power. People will still be able to make the same damn cables, albeit with slightly cagier language on the packaging, and your friendly local geek and/or AV salesdude will still know exactly what you need.
You could write an open spec with no provision for digital restrictions management, but how would you get Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner to go along with it? If Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner don't endorse a spec, they won't make their films available through the spec, and manufacturers of large (>= 30" diagonal viewable image size) displays won't feel a demand for the spec.
So... did I get that right, the whole fuss is about calling it a "HDMI cable" while it fails to meet spec?
As I understand it, HDMI is not only trademarked but also patented, and the trademarks and patents are licensed as a bundle. So any cable compatible with HDMI conforming equipment that doesn't meet the spec infringes one or more patents.
The HDMI LLC want more money to display their HDMI logo.
Can I suggest that from now on the alternative name for the 'unlicensed' HDMI port be the Cartel Restricted Appliance Port.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
If these lawyers start telling me that I don't own even the physical goods I buy [...] then those lawyers are simply thieves.
When you walk into a store and "buy" something, you may be asked to sign a contract stating that this transaction shall be deemed a 95-year rental (for copies of works of authorship) or 20-year rental (for other products) and not a sale.
If apple would just use existing standards then it would make everyone's life a lot easier. Just put only HDMI outputs, and/or DVI.
OOI are there any good reasons to still use HDMI/DVI-D rather than DP?
(Apart from the fact that my U2311H doesn't support HDCP DRM over DP, of course. God knows I want more DRM.)
Anyone think of another case where a certain type of cable is illegal? It's just wire going from one place to another; how could it be illegal??! If I make my own cable, is that illegal?
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Cables with DVI at one end and HDMI at the other seem to be just as common if not moreso than the DisplayPort equivalent (or were when I bought one); how come there's not been a huge fuss about that?
Don't use HDMI!
Finding God in a Dog
Despite the alarmist headline, if you read the linked article carefully, you'll see that the only type of recall being considered is at the retail level. That is, retailers and distributors will have to remove the product from the shelves. There is no plan under consideration to go after consumers who have already purchased the cables for personal use. So if you already bought, paid for, and are using a cable, you should be okay to continue doing so.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Patents cover creative works. Making a connector to mate another is not creative, it's functional.
They cannot stop people from making cables, just keep them from calling them HDMI cables.
They can call them HDMI-compatible cables though.
If you could stop companies from making compatible cables/connectors then all those unlicensed "iPod compatible" accessories wouldn't exist.
HDMI patents quite likely would keep you from making HDMI devices, because being active devices they would use other technologies that the HDMI group was able to patent.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
How fitting this is posted the same day as the post about MBAs being the scourge of industry. None of these disciplines have any engineering knowledge, yet they are vested with the authority to build business models around technology. And so, this sort of thing becomes a great way of doing business - not actually making anything or adding value that people will pay for (that whole invisible hand of the market thing).
We have a standard that says everything has to use the same HDMI connector. Then Apple tries to sleaze around it and introduce their own, incompatible connector. The problem is Apple, not the HDMI consortium. Apple just needs to get with the program.
From the article:
May Charlene Wan and the directors of HDMI LLC be stricken with kidney stones and may those stones take several weeks to pass.
"HDMI LLC". What a fucking riot. A Limited Liability Corporation.
Where is "The Wheel LLC"? There's some Cro-Magnon maker who's been frozen for 300,000 years that has a serious beef with General Motors. The specification for "The Wheel" clearly states "A round, chunk of rock with a hole in the middle which is to be used to crush the skulls of an enemy so the brains can be eaten, thus conferring the bravery onto the victor." Any other application of said technology is a violation of said specification and thus expressly illegal.
Fuck anyone and everyone who is abusing the patent system in this manner. Fuck them all to Hell, including Charlene Wan and her brother Erwin "Magic" Wan.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Write a fucking license, douchebags.
It's hard to imagine the HDMI crew having much control over retailers.
From the article:
Gee, I wonder why. Hell, I have the right to demand this — and the retailers have a right to ignore me. What sort of leverage do they have, really? How likely is it thatany of the HDMI patent-holders are going to "threaten" to pull its products from, say, Wal-Mart's shelves, or threaten to sue Wal-Mart or its customers if they don't "comply" with the terms of an agreement they never signed, presumably on patent or trademark grounds? It seems more likely that the Wal-Marts of the world would say "either allow us to continue to sell these profitable accessories without hassles, or else we'll stop wasting precious display space on your bulky, low-margin devices."
Moreover, presuming the adapters in question do their job and work well, what actual damages could the HDMI guys claim? "Potential revenues due to lack of competition?" As far as I can see, these products don't actually compete with licensed products, unless the claim is that customers could buy, say, a Sony PC instead of an iMac, and it's hard to see any reasonable court sympathetic to this sort of claim, patents and trademarks be damned.
Surely retailers' lawyers aren't this stupid.
What, is someone going to be seriously injured by using these cables? I've understood 'illegal' to mean a violation of criminal law, not just a civil matter like a breach of contract or a trademark violation?
Or at least I will not [sign a rental agreement] if they ask.
If you reserve the right to refuse to sign, then each publisher reserves the right to refuse to sell* you a copy. For example, Nintendo consoles have long had the serial number scanned at the time of sale for warranty activation, and I saw in a Staples store recently that QuickBooks software has to be activated at the cash register as an anti-shoplifting measure. It wouldn't be a stretch to verify EULA acceptance at the point of sale nowadays. And once more industries move toward EULA-at-register as standard practice, good luck doing without entire industries.
* Rent
As Albert Einstein described radio..."You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." So what kind of cat do we need?
About a month ago Staples home office issued a recall and destroy notice for a certain type of these cables. I wondered why at the time but this would make sense.
I'm always looking for ways to give my entertainment center that badass pirate look! Now I can paint a mini skull-and-crossbones on my DVI-D --> HDMI cable adapter without feeling *too* silly in front of the ladies. And I'll feel less compelled to impress dates by explaining libdvdcss every time I pop a DVD into the MythTV box...
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
amazon has some nice low prices on several
DVI can do HDCP and old cable box had DVI and lot's of TV have HDMI with a HDMI RCA sound in port.
If this is the sort of shit they get up to, I wouldn't want to give them a penny of my money
The story has since been updated and seems now to be more of a disagreement of whether a HDMI to Displayport thing-a-ma-jig is a cable vs an adapter. If it is considered a cable, then it falls outside of the HDMI specs. If it is considered an adapter, the specification "contemplates" such a product and thus it would be legal. This sounds like a typical story written on a slow news day. It's just a tempest in a teapot...
Cables are not going to be recalled, the world is not going to end (at least not until 2012), and those who rushed out to buy cables on speculation are not going to make a fortune.... (grin)
David
Practically speaking, it's not possible to stop us from getting the cables we want.
From TFA: "The news will be a massive blow to the many companies who are making these cables, but the HDMI does point out that those cables with a DisplayPort socket on one side and an HDMI female receptacle on the other (essentially a dongle) are okay. This is because a licensed HDMI lead can slot into them."
Monoprice and the adapters apple sell are fine. The cable may be more convenient, but in most cases, its a non issue id think.
So if the only licensed cables have HDMI connectors at both ends, what about all those HDMI DVI-D cables? Are all those "illegal" too?
Are they a violation of the license just like HDMI to DisplayPort? You'd think the licensing company would have noticed them by now...
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/hdmi-dvi-cables/index.htm Are these then also illegal because they fall outside of the narrow definitions of HDMI connectors on both ends.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
I was going to post about this this as well. I have bought and used several of these over the years:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10231&cs_id=1023104&p_id=2405&seq=1&format=2
The only thing I can think of is that DVI is signal equivalent for overlapping resolutions in the HDMI spec and thus perhaps allowed while the other cables do some conversion of the signal which is the illegal part?
Yay for press releases that refer to things as "illegal" when they mean "our contracts don't like it." Sure, you may get sued. But you're getting sued in civil court for violating your contract with the 3rd party, and you're going to pay whatever recompense the contract specifies. You're not doing something "illegal," as what you're doing is not forbidden by law.
Contract != law
The ______ Agenda
is "this weird shape"really enough these days?
Even if it weren't, the signaling over HDMI is probably patented, and a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter includes such a signal source.
Sell us your mini-DisplayPort-to-HDMI cables! Call now at 1-800-MNIHDMI or visit or web site at mini-DisplayPort-to-HDMI.com!
Just get two adapters, Mini-DisplayPort to DVI, then a DVI to HDMI.
Wouldn't this work?
I think the answer lies in the DisplayPort connector -- why do some computers have DisplayPort and not HDMI?
My sense is that the adapters either undermine connector licensing -- Wikipedia notes that DisplayPort is a royalty free standard -- or somehow threaten copyright controls built into HDMI, or both.
BluRay has to use HDCP for HD video, which pretty much mandates HDMI, so TV makers have put HDMI on TVs, and from there it became something of a home AV standard. Computer makers didn't need HDCP, so they went with the royalty-free solution, which in turn has been easy to connect to HDMI displays with an adapter. I note on Newegg that there are a number of monitors available with DisplayPort, so it's possible to go all-DP on a computer setup.
My best guess is that with so many people wanting to plug a laptop (no royalty) into a TV and at least some display makers willing to add DP, the future for HDMI as a standard is perhaps threatened and revenue is certainly decreased by 50% in some future world when only half the devices use your connector.
And if you think even not that further out, there may be a future where nobody buys a "TV" anymore -- you buy a display with either in-built intelligence to view programming from network(s) or you attach some computing device. If the latter has DisplayPort and this is what most people do, then the TV doesn't need HDMI and the standard withers, much to the chagrin of the people cashing royalty checks, and to the movie studios who want the DRM.
Open-source the converter electronics, never come straight out with the term "HDMI" in the documentation but hint strongly at it (but feel free to mention "DisplayPort"). Put generic through-hole pads for the HDMI-side interface connections on the PCB artwork, expecting the person constructing the converter to get an HDMI extension cable and chop off one end, solder the wires directly to the PCB. Be sure to release the whole thing to USENET, so that it never, ever completely dies. HDMI Corp gets screwed, end of problem.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The Cables used to extend USB Cables, which were bundled with hundreds of Consumer Devices were illegal too, according to USB 1.1
That didn't stop manufacturers like Logitech and Apple including them with Peripherals. (Apple's extension cables were slotted to prevent anything but Apple Keyboards to connect to them)
The USB-IF amended this clause in later versions once they realized that they couldn't do anything about the thousands of products already on the market that violated the license.
Hopefully, either HDMI LLC wise up too, or Display manufacturers start including Royalty-free Display Ports on their devices. Display Port supports the xvYYC colourspace and even CEC now, which almost makes HDMI redundant.
I had no idea why it was there, but I remember first discovering that usb slotting. "what the hell?"
-> knife
There, fixed. Standard procedure ever since..
The F#(k. My response to that
(obviously, the resolution is not actually improved by the upconversion.. so low resolution input sources will look exactly the same as they would plugged directly into a display device that supported it of exactly the same size... but I find having the selector in place and running only the one hdmi cable from it to the monitor simplifies my life a great deal).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
but I disagree. This is one of those cases. If the lawyers who were going to try to prohibit the sale of cables were to suddenly find themselves with broken kneecaps, I bet that future lawyers would be hesitant to file in the future.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's cool to sell $100 HDMI cables that people don't need, but omg if you try to sell an adapter that many of us need... well that's illegal!
Hey I've got an idea! Let's just ditch the HDMI on both ends and go mini-dp.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
You know, there is a difference between "not licensed" and "illegal". It's a fucking cable (or adapter) for Christ's sake.
Just take a cable thats mini DP on both ends, and on one end plug in a properly licensed DP to HDMI adapter. Then glue it together. Wrap the connection up in some rubber with BELKIN written on that and sell that.
They couldn't even do this, I'm pretty sure a Finnish retailer isn't going to recall anything based on this. But this is just stupidity.
I have a DVI-HDMI cable, and I bought it because common sense says that it would be more practical and more reliable than HDMI-HDMI + adapter. Which I thought I would have to buy at first but then I found out they made these kind of cables.
The point is, if I can't buy another cable like this, it would just be stupid. But I guess HDMI connectors in graphics cards are becoming more common. I don't have one though.
(Slightly cynical:)
Ill just circumvent these troubles by using analog VGA connectors.
At least these work.
Apple ships a HDMI (male) to DVI (female) dongle with every single Mac Mini they sell. So, what exactly will happen to those dongles? It's a male HDMI on one end but not the other (which breaks the spec).
They can't say it's illegal. They can say it violates their contract between the licensee and licenser, but that's between them, it's a civil matter.
For these cables to be illegal, there has to be a law making them illegal, sort of like possession of, I don't know, 100 tons of heroin (and I disagree with that law as well.)
In any case, all patents should be declared void and null and never be given to anybody ever again.
You can't handle the truth.
It's a connector, a plug, a socket, metallic bits against each other, a cable. If US pats "protect" that, then it's better to ignore US pats and sell them any way they can. It wouldn't be the first nor the last time something is sold despite pats.
That's still retrospective bullshit being applied to somebody that has paid for them even if they have paid for them with the plan of selling them to somebody else. Product recalls even just at the level of returning unsold stock are expensive for everyone involved and IMHO should only happen where a recall will remove some sort of hazard.
Something is illegal if break a law. A standard is not a law, so these cables can be unstandard, not illegal,
Indeed, no sane consumer would send theirs back. But shops will have to send back any unsold inventory, so if you haven't yours yet, hurry up now to buy a bunch of them now...
I hated those slotted keyboards.. I had to take a chisel to one to make it fit.
I know they were "making it work" for themselves, but any time I need woodworking tools to do IT, something went wrong.
So now a private company can create new laws?!?! #dontthinksotim
http://dev.emcelettronica.com/guide-to-video-cables-diy-adapters
Then 8th inch to RCA for audio.
Have fun.
Nonsense. HDCP has nothing to do with HDMI. DVI and DisplayPort can and do implement HDCP. DVI had HDCP before there WAS any HDMI.
Simple. You design a connector that FITS the HDMI port, but, for some reason of measurements or maybe leaving some mechanical feature off it, does not actually constitute an HDMI connector, then you can put anything you want on the other end of the cable.
These yahoos make me sick with their attempts to keep people from backing up their CDs, DVDs, HD stuff, etc. If I want to travel with my library, I don't want to put $5000 worth of DVDs in the car, I want to put $80 worth of backed-up copies, so if it is lost or stolen, I just burn a new set. It happened to my audio CDs a few years ago when I left a Case Logic folder full of about 100 CDs of music laying on the car. Drove off, and it's somewhere along the Gunflint Trail north of Superior. Burned a new set. No problem.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Pssst. Hey you. You need the latest computer cable?
I've got a whole trench coat of 'em. Right of the back of a truck.
The idea that a cable could be illegal is supremely ridiculous. Keep your lobbyists out of my government, please.
I've never liked HDMI, because the first time I heard about it, it was immediately mentioned that HDMI would include a digital restrictions management system, which would be used by various vendors to plug the analog hole.
And now this.
Words just cannot describe. "Oh my lord! They're making something that interoperates with our standard! We can't allow that to happen!"
For some strange reason, though, it seems that devices the supposedly royalty-free DisplayPort are actually more expensive than HDMI with all these shenanigans. Does anybody know how that works? Because, you know, there may come a time when I will have to abandon the good old VGA port, and I would like to move to something with as little silliness as I can find.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
On the packet put the phase 'HDMI-Compatible' * may not work with all devices.
And then tell the IP lawyers to go home. And stop been cry babies.
What about my DVI to HDMI Cable? Oh that's right, i don't give a damn. *plugs it back in* I would have never touched HDMI if you could still buy a TV with DVI. All my content is pirated anyway, so their DRM is useless. It's actually WHY I pirate.
Recently I bought a movie on iTunes, and decided to pay the extra few dollars to get the HD version. When I went to play the movie on my Mac Pro (which has a DMI output on the video card) The movie played perfectly on my big display using a DMI adapter (perhaps because it supported HDCP over DMI. When I went to play the same movie on my MBP, no problem. But when I tried to play the movie on my big display in my bedroom using a mini-display-port-to-VGA adapter, no luck. It was very annoying. Just a few days ago I purchased a mini-to-HDMI adapter (the apple one) because I misplaced my other adapter, and to my surprise I was allowed to watch the movie I paid for. I have literally been sitting here wondering why one is blocked and the other is not. They can pry my new adapter from my cold dead hands.
The bureaucracy drives me nuts! I want one port on my laptop, that I can use to connect to VGA, DVI, HDMI... whatever. That's why I like MDP. It doesn't make my laptop look a Dark Empire Star Destroyer, and it's simple and reliable for connecting all types of things.
I also don't want to cart around a hundred dongles that cost a small fortune each! I just want a cable.
When will idiots think about the actual consumer, and not their own clever, academic nonsense. Who really cares if a cable has one plug on one side and another on the other side. It's still standards stuff, and to be frank, we've had cables doing all sorts of conversions forever.
So are my DVI -> HDMI cables illegal too? Is Charlene Wan coming with the police to bust down my front door and seize my unauthorized property?
Posting AC for obvious reasons..
I could sue anyone for having a funny nose, what matters is, did they actually win?
I can't find details about Apple v. Sanho at the moment, sorry. But in cases where a Fortune 100 multinational company sues a much smaller company or an individual, just suing is a win for the larger company because any victory by the small company at trial will likely be pyrrhic.
When will this madness end?
The beginning of the end will happen in 2023, twenty years after the first HDMI devices were sold.
To the record labels, Phillips is crippling technology that could help against the dreaded music pirates.
This will be resolved soon by altering the spec, either an official "DisplayPort to HDMI cable" or "HDMI cable with built-in DisplayPort adapter."
The Cables used to extend USB Cables, which were bundled with hundreds of Consumer Devices were illegal too, according to USB 1.1
That didn't stop manufacturers like Logitech and Apple including them with Peripherals. (Apple's extension cables were slotted to prevent anything but Apple Keyboards to connect to them)
A university I worked at upgraded their Mac lab, and didn't use the USB extension cables. I grabbed a handful, took a pair of pliers and ripped off the bit of plastic that apple put on to keep normal sized USB ends from fitting in, and it worked beautifully.
These companies need to stop thinking that their users are idiots and let us start coming up with creative uses for their products. it makes the brand a lot more valuable.
When they pry it from my cold dead hands.
When Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapters are outlawed, only outlaws will have Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapters!
You can have my Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
(A proud member of the National DisplayPort-to-HDMI Association)
Proverbs 21:19
They were certainly rebels, maybe even insurgents - though I think not. But as a rule they did not randomly target civilians to instill terror. They may have engaged in guerilla tactics. Of course IANAH, so whatever.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
This might be a stupid question, but how does being unlicensed make it illegal?
Forcing everyone to make cables HDMI cables that only have HDMI connectors is very good for the consumers.
Why? Because it means Sony, Nintendo, MS can't stick some weird shaped HDMI port on their consoles that forces me to spend 5 times as much to buy a cable that fits. It stops me having the farcical USB situation where you have dozen or so different shapes, some of which are so similar, the only way to know you've put the wrong cable in a device is when you get a "power has been cut to your USB ports as a short circuit was detected".
It may sound like it's a tyranical way of clawing money from manufacturers but if it means I can use the same £5 cable in every piece of electronics I own, I'm all for it.
this seems to explain to me why there is no Blu-Ray on Apple computers if I read this right - Display Port is open source and HDMI is sort of proprietary plus Blu-Ray mandates HDMI inorder to allow for HD. Just anothjer reason to avoid Apple products
This is all about maintaining the now artificial divide between "TEEVEE" and Computer. The HDMI is brilliant. The content cartel, realizing that they had to put up a wall against oncoming technology (Maginot Line, anyone ?) came up with the HDMI and control it by licensing. This gives a cross border solution that can be controlled at the manufacturing level, with penalties for the guy in china or elsewhere who comes up with "non HDCP" compliant hardware. Now, Apple goes and gives you a cable that crosses the boundary between TEEVEE and Computer. Along with "analog sunset", the HDMI is designed to once and for all lock down the signal, for as long as brilliant patent attorneys can prolong the idea. All they needed to do was get every TV maker to sign on ... and they did !!!!
Meanwhile, pirates rip and torrent apace, and honest guys like me have to deal with "HDCP handshake issues".
The TV and Computer are only 5 years from total merger, but the idea of a special connector, controlled by licensing and a licensing body, with patent protection, all to protect electronic content, is brilliant. Read the public HDMI and HDCP documentation. In this world, you need "compliant" equipment only attached to HDMI.
They have to fight to maintain the integrity. Wouldn't want those precious content bits in any old format, would we ?
(Apple's extension cables were slotted to prevent anything but Apple Keyboards to connect to them)
Unless you just pushed a bit harder and wiggled it just right, then it would fit anyway.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
OMG, It has been recalled? I will be right over to drop mine off!
Yea, like that's going to happen.
I want to build an extension cord for my bedlamp. I found a way to have the transformer resting on the floor and one of the above cables to make the connection.
Now you tell me it is illegal for me to have a lamp in my bedroom.
Screw the cable standards. We are not dealing with RF frequencies and standing waves or impedance termination. Just change the name of the cables to GRONK and that will satisfy everyone. BTW, I occasionally sell GRONK pairs of cables.
I can't believe that something that is going to become so ubiquitous is so crippled/cripplable. Maybe it's just my ludditery shining through?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.