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.
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."
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"
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
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.
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
They may well have HDMI-specific patents; but HDCP is something that(while obligatory for HDMI-compliant sources and sinks) is available separately from Intel for DVI, HDMI, Displayport, and a couple of others as of HDMI 1.3 and Displayport 1.1, so a setup involving a recent Displayport source would presumably be covered in terms of HDCP. Additionally, ordinary passive cabling doesn't interact with HDCP at all, it just has to deliver the signals more or less unmangled to the sink, so that would only seem to be an issue for active cabling that has to be an HDCP-licensed device in order to process the signal in some way...
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.
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.
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
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.
Yes, and Apple was using it before that time. Presumably to avoid a repeat of firewire, they made it available under acceptable terms and it became part of the spec.
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..
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
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 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.