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!
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.
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.
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
As annoying as that is, at least I understand the commercial desire to maximize profit.
I understand the base urge to rape and pillage. I still don't approve of it and would support steps to reduce it.
You are aware that HDMI and Displayport are completely different digital video interfaces? Now, Apple did jump on the 'too cool for displayport' bus and went with their own 'mini displayport'; but Displayport is a completely different interface, with a different spec, drawn up by a different consortium. The only Apple product with an HDMI port is their newer mini, and it's just a boring old HDMI port, they didn't even go with the mini version.
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.