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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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