HDMI licensing - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: Jat
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 28, 2018, 08:47:39 pm
content: Trying to design a product with HDMI output but not clear about licensing.Have a product with VGA output and working on adding a chip to the board to convert the signals to HDMI as new screens mostly have HDMI inputs. Very confused with mixed information about licensing HDMI in a product.Will appreciate if someone has experience with this and point in the right direction.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 12:34:54 am
content: You could implement DVI, which is a subset of HDMI.

author: Jat
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 01:36:45 am
content: Thanks for replying NiHaoMike but then the issue is not all new monitors will have DVI.So is it right that even if we use some bridging chip to convert signals to HDMI then we need to get a licence?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 01:47:36 am
content: Have no clue.Have you looked there?https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_0/hdmi_2_0_licensing.aspxI haven't seen any licensing points for HDMI 1.4, so thay may indicate that you could do without licensing if you stick to HDMI 1.4, but I'm not sure really.I also don't exactly know what their licensing entails. Probably easier to ask them... but you can start with their FAQs (unless you already did that).

author: TERRA Operative
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 02:33:20 am
content: I'm not sure if it's the case for HDMI, but sometimes with codecs the licensing fee is rolled into the purchase price of the chip.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 02:43:33 am
content: Build it with DVI and throw a cheap as chips HDMI adapter into the box:https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Felkin-DVI-to-HDMI-Adapter-Cable-24k-Gold-Plated-Plug-HDMI-To-DVI-24-1-Pin/32879269883.html?spm=2114.search0604.3.63.7fa4654caz8ZcU&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_1_10065_10068_10547_319_317_10548_10696_10084_453_10924_454_10083_10618_10920_10921_10307_10922_537_536_10059_10884_10887_100031_321_322_10103,searchweb201603_51,ppcSwitch_0&algo_expid=c5995067-b333-481f-b50d-7bfc5f562e03-9&algo_pvid=c5995067-b333-481f-b50d-7bfc5f562e03

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 02:59:18 am
content: I’m pretty sure that DVI-D is passively converted to HDMI (and vice versa) just by a cable that has the correct ends on it. I know that we’ve done this a LOT at work and never had an issue. I don’t know if it’s guaranteed by specs, but I do know it works.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 03:02:03 am
content: Quote from: tautech on November 29, 2018, 02:43:33 amIf you do this, most likely you are still subject to the licensing fees. Basically you pay for each product sold, you don't pay separately for accessories included in the box. But if you sell cable or adapter as separate product, you must pay for them as much as if it was a whole TV or satellite receiver. IIRC it was something like $10k annual fee + $0.05-$0.15 fee for each device sold.Also there is another licensing model for test equipment, no fixed large annual fee but then you pay a few bucks for each device.Edit: $5k + $1 per device + $0.05-$0.15 per device.

author: Jat
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 06:30:45 am
content: thank you everyone for your feedback and yes its not very clear anywhere about the pricing but all this does add to the pricing and workload of designing a product.Right now our clients are using VGA to HDMI adapters but would have been cool to have this integrated into the product as then people think that its a very old design with VGA output.Was hoping to useADV7533chip to convert the parallel pixel data into HDMI

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 07:31:48 am
content: That fact than no one here knows the answer probably points most turning the blind eye to it. Dell's solution was to develop (fund) DisplayPort and make is open source. But it now seems even it's OS status is questioned.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 08:13:45 am
content: Single link DVI-D is the same as HDMI except without audio support.You literally just connect the right pins on a DVI connector to the right pins of a HDMI connector and it works. This is why you can easily find cables that have DVI on one end and HDMI on the other.If you need to have audio then you technically need to use HDMI, but the audio data is traveling on the same wires as the video so using a HDMI chip connected to a DVI connector would have audio work just fine. Its possible you might need to use a HDMI connector if you need ARC(Audio return channel) support tho.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 08:23:19 am
content: Quote from: tautech on November 29, 2018, 02:43:33 amThat is just a pinout adapter - you can output DVI on a HDMI connector - no way anyone is due a license for using a particular connector, just don't use the logo.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 08:49:32 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on November 29, 2018, 08:23:19 amIf there is no license fee on the connector geometry (to be confirmed?), then you can simply put an HDMI jack on your PCB, and feed a DVI signal to it. Same thing, just without the audio. Every HDMI monitor should accept the signal, with any jellybean HDMI cable.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 09:44:13 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on November 29, 2018, 08:23:19 amI've investigated this a few years ago. As long as it can transfer HDMI signal, you need to pay a full licence fee even for a stupid cable.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 09:46:11 am
content: https://www.semiconductorstore.com/blog/2014/licensing-costs-HDMI/654/Note that without a logo you need to pay more than with logo (must certify compliance).Quote

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 09:52:47 am
content: Quote from: wraper on November 29, 2018, 09:44:13 amSo call it DVI

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 09:53:21 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on November 29, 2018, 09:52:47 amRead above, does not matter.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 09:53:34 am
content: Quote from: wraper on November 29, 2018, 09:44:13 amBut what happens if itcan'ttransmit an HDMI signal. (Only DVI. Or, for the sake of the argument, let's assume I decide to use an HDMI connector to transmit analog audio.) Does the use of the HDMI-style connector alone still incur a license fee?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 09:58:29 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on November 29, 2018, 09:53:34 amDVI becomes HDMI, basically the same thing unless you need too high bitrate not supported by DVI. For audio, probably not, grey area. Tell me results once you have won a legal battle. Actually if they go against you, it might not even matter if you are right or wrong. Especially if you are located in US. You might be right but you'll lose (or won't afford legal process at all) a ton of money in legal battle anyway. That's how patent trolls earn their money, cheaper to pay ransom than prove you're right.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 10:07:36 am
content: So unless there is a space constraint, the best option for the OP would appear to be to use a DVI connector.DVI-HDMI cables and adaptors are readily available.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 10:10:16 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on November 29, 2018, 10:07:36 amIf you don't include adapter in the package, I guess it should be okay.

author: knapik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 11:52:34 am
content: Wouldn't display port be suitable as an alternative? Actually, after looking it up, it seems you need to pay $5000 for VESA membership before getting access to the standard, but there is no royalty per device.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 01:57:23 pm
content: Quote from: knapik on November 29, 2018, 11:52:34 amYep, there is no royalty from VESA but MPEG LA a few years ago decided that everyone needs to pay them $ 0.20 per device because of their patent portfolio. VESA says that's unfounded BS though.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 02:27:52 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on November 29, 2018, 07:31:48 amI'm willing to think that is true.Another thought is that it may be a bit like with USB. (https://www.usb.org/logo-license)Using the official USB logo implies you are licensed (and that your device passed compliance testing). But many manufacturers do not use the official logo and thus don't infringe on that AFAIK. The USB case is a bit trickier though as if you buy an USB vendor ID, you'll have to apply for USB-IF membership (if it hasn't changed), so you'll be granted the license without extra step except that your device is still supposed to be USB-IF compliant.In the same vein, it's likely that selling a device having HDMI ports only requires licensing if you both use the official HDMI logo (https://www.hdmi.org/logosphotos/logos.aspx) and claim HDMI compliance.Most sold USB devices are not really compliant (not provably at least) and can't claim USB compliance, but that doesn't prevent them from being sold, and I'd guess that the same holds with a lot of devices with HDMI ports.Obviously the safe way is to directly ask the HDMI alliance:https://www.hdmi.org/

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 02:59:47 pm
content: USB has no royalties. However you must be a member of USB-IF to receive and maintain VID. Membership costs IIRC $5k annually. And you can make as many devices as you want without paying any additional fees. Also you may use VID/PID given to you by IC manufacturer (MCU, USB/RS232 converter, etc.).

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 03:42:01 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on November 29, 2018, 10:10:16 amWhy would op need to license an adapter? I assume they would not mfg the adapter and just "resell" it, but I've not looked much into it and when I do I find it confusing. USB C for example, why isn't the licensing connected to the chip? We have taken some pains to avoid using trademarked USB Type-C and SS terms/logos, but I know some will still publish those references elsewhere, and then what are the implications? The USB fork is free to use though, so we just stick that on every USB port type.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 04:28:06 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 29, 2018, 02:27:52 pmNo, if I understand the quote in wraper's reply #14 correctly, it actually works the other way round:If you use the HDMI logo and claim compliance, you pay asmallerlicense fee ($0.05) than if you merely use the functionality ($0.15).

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 04:41:38 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on November 29, 2018, 04:28:06 pmBut from my quick skimming of their site, I think if you use the logo, you have to have them certify it.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 05:05:23 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on November 29, 2018, 04:41:38 pmRight, that's what wraper's quote says as well:Quote

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 05:08:13 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on November 29, 2018, 04:28:06 pmI was not talking about the licensing cost itself, but about the fact you should get a license at all, which are two different things. Obviously if you use the logo a license is mandatory. The license, amongst other things, will grant you the right to use it. Now having to get a license (with seemingly higher royalties, weird choice but probably to promote the use of HDMI) just for using the functionality is a show-stopper for small companies especially the yearly fees, and particularly if you sell development boards in relatively small quantities...The Wikipedia article seems to confirm the licensing scheme mentioned in the blog:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#LicensingOut of curiosity, I took a look at the list of "adopters" (licensees) and the RPi foundation is listed.https://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/adopters_founders.aspx#RThat definitely suggests that development boards are also subject to licensing. We will think twice before devising dev boards with an HDMI output.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 05:16:46 pm
content: Then there's the option to name it something else:

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 05:30:58 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 29, 2018, 05:16:46 pmYes, a bit as I hinted above, except that we don't actually know what they mean by using "HDMI functionality", nor how your device could be considered not using it. Not sure just changing names would qualify for that...Of course many companies probably just either don't know or hope nobody at HDMI will ever notice.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2018, 05:44:08 pm
content: There is a lot of vaguess though - it's all about "advantages of being an adopter" as opposed to "what can I do if I'm not".There are also plenty of references to needin access to the spec to produce devices, which is clearly not true.Is there a definitive list anywhere of the actual IP they are claiming?

author: Jat
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 02:44:43 am
content: I am just so thankful that everyone has been so helpful in providing feedback on this topics, at least I dont feel alone in this now.As I was hoping to use Analog Devices chip, I contacted them and this is what they said:You'd need to be an HDMI adopter regardless, depending on what you are trying to do. You have to check here for the terms:HDMI:www.HDMI.orgThanks,

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 04:23:28 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 29, 2018, 05:08:13 pmThe Pi does use the HDMI logo and implements features not found in DVI such as audio.I would say just put in a DVI connector, implement plain old DVI, and make no mention of HDMI at all.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 06:28:28 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on November 29, 2018, 05:08:13 pmSure. Why would "dev boards" be exempt, when they are products offered for sale to third parties?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 05:12:40 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on November 30, 2018, 06:28:28 amJust because dev boards are usually not considered end-products per se. Of course this is often borderline.The problem here is we have to distinguish the licensing from the royalties. Whereas, if we understand it well, only the final product would incur royalties (which obviously would be hard to enforce for dev boards: what happens in case the dev board is included in some end-product? Wouldn't it become just a component of it? And thus having paid royalties on the dev board would imply paying royalties twice actually for the same end-product? Doesnt seem right.) - becoming a licensee in itself (without considering any royalties on individual products) is probably mandatory just for IP reasons. So I'm guessing here that even a component manufacturer has to become a licensee (at least to be able to use the HDMI specs and the HDMI name), even though it doesn't have to pay royalties on the sold components themselves (as they are just components). Does that sound right?I may have gone a bit far considering the RPi as a dev board though, as the RPi foundation classifies it as a "computer" and not as a development tool.https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/faqs/#introductionGenerally speaking, the so-called "SBCs" are borderline between dev boards and end-products.As an example, let's take a look at the BeagleBone Black. It has HDMI, can run Linux, and in many aspects is not unlike an "SBC" like the RPi.In its documentation, it's clearly stated:QuoteSo are royalties to be paid on that? I wouldn't think so. But I may be wrong.Would the developers have to be HDMI adopters? It's still very unclear to me, as they would just use off-the-shelf components for which other licensees have already been licensed for.The devil is always in the details.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 05:33:13 pm
content: For the Beaglebone, I think they are trying to work around compliance requirements (FCC etc.) — not sure whether they legally can with that disclaimer. I don‘t think the disclaimer is effective to avoid license fees where a technology requires them.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 06:04:53 pm
content: HDMI has never been a problem to implement and use freely as long as you don't use the official HDMI logo or say it's HDMI certified compliant. I've purchase plenty of Analog devices HDMI ICs without a license.What's going to nail your ass with a useless AV consumer product is HDCP. Without, you cannot play any movies or interface with most AV receivers at all. Getting my hands on an Analog Devices HDMI chip with HDCP keys installed and their data sheets is a whole different story. Unless you have the big $$$ and need to also get your product certified, plus a shit load of red tape, you wont even come close to getting an HDCP license.If you want to switch or buffer a HDCP HDMI source, without overlay, this is a different story as the HDCP is passed through un-decoded, the data is just buffered and re-clocked with the higher quality HDMI switching ICs.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 06:34:56 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on November 30, 2018, 06:04:53 pmYou only need a license to purchase HDCP stuff.I've yet to see any definitive evidence that you don't need to pay the HDMI cartel money to ship HDMI products, most sources suggest otherwise but are a bit light on details.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 06:37:44 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on November 29, 2018, 09:44:13 amCitation needed

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 07:04:20 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on November 30, 2018, 06:37:44 pmClose, you heed a full license to print and sell you cable as "HDMI X.x Certified". It's more than just a license, you need to pass inspections and both electrical, mechanical and even logo print size and color tests which require everything to be in spec. Including the thickness of the plastic on the connector and the size and orientation of the HDMI logo you need to print on the cable.Many cables exist which plug into and pass HDMI signals, but are cheap junk which have no licensed certification.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 07:14:51 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on November 30, 2018, 06:34:56 pmCorrect for earlier HDCP which was also available on DVI. It's been 5 year since I've done work in DVI-HDMI transceivers, but for Analog Devices top HDMI 1.4 deep color support RX & decoder IC with HDCP1.x, there was a version without HDCP and to get the HDCP version, I needed a developers or adopters license fromhttps://www.digital-cp.com/. For their top HDMI 1.4 deep color transmitter, it actually came with HDCP capable encoding, though, the data sheets I had vaguely skipped the I2C command sections about entering the keys and how they worked other than the block of register memory contents to be filled.

author: Wan Huang Luo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2018, 07:22:24 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 29, 2018, 02:43:33 amFelkin brand from Aliexpress. I love it so much it's giving me the tingles. Definitely going in the One Hung Low Top Ten.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2018, 01:30:17 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on November 30, 2018, 06:04:53 pmOnly applies when making a device with HDMI input. HDCP is only required on a HDMI output if the application requires it.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 01, 2018, 02:52:36 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on November 30, 2018, 06:37:44 pmHow about quote you likely already have read?Quote from: wraper on November 29, 2018, 09:46:11 am

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2018, 12:04:59 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on December 01, 2018, 02:52:36 amThat's not entirely clear - my reading is that it only defines when adopters need to pay a royalty - this will be constrained by the terms of their license agreement.I've yet to see a definitive statement of what you can or cannot do if you are not a member/adopter, or a list of exactly what IP is covered.The wording on the HDMI site seems to be based on the idea that you can't (i.e. not possible, as opposed to not allowed) do anything without the official spec, which you need to pay for access to.

author: David_elec
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 20, 2021, 10:53:29 am
content: Hi Jat, I think that manufacturing or selling products with HDMI connectors that HDMI license is needed.Elecrow is one of HDMI adopter and our company provide one stop PCB service.How do your think about the following solution?You can arrange your product manufactured by Elecrow and sell by Elecrow and then you only get the profit without pay this license fee.https://www.elecrow.com/cooperated-designers.html

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2021, 01:17:34 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on November 30, 2018, 06:04:53 pmEasy to buy a truckload of these chips from China

author: viperidae
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 02:19:53 am
content: Not a lawyer, but what exactly is the legal basis for requiring a licensed?If you don't use their logo or name, there is no copyright or trademark issue.Do they have a patent on sending digital audio through an HDMI shaped connector? I doubt it. Even if it were patent based, HDMI is nearly 20 years old now.If you don't use their logo, what is there left to pay for?

author: viperidae
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 03:56:54 am
content: Except the only patent you could get on a connector shape is a design patent, which not all countries recognise and are generally 14 years in USA. The HDMI connector is 20 years old.You can't copyright a connector, which is why companies like Apple require chips in lightning cables.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 06:29:01 am
content: Usually its about the logo trademark. But for a while until the specs leak out they also rely on the fact that you need to buy the specification document from them in order to know how to implement it.Much like you see cheep products label a memory card socket as being TF-Card or TransFlash or whatever. That is because you are allowed to call something TransFlash without anyone coming after you since its obsolete. But since TransFlash cards are what later became SD cards means they are compatible with each other. So they are not wrong when calling it a TransFlash card socket, its just that the modern SD cards conveniently happen to be compatible with it (Since they are basically the same thing).USB is similar. If you want to put that USB logo on it then you need to be a USB certified device with a license and a vendor id number. They never say that you can't implement USB on your own, but without a license you are only allowed say your device is "USB compatible". Its more about protecting the USB brand so that when users see something with a USB logo they know it will work when plugged into a device with a USB logo (Well... USB-C kinda screwed that up big time, but that's a topic for another day).

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 12:39:10 pm
content: HDMI is less than 20 years old and they license based on patentpoolhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_poolthey have. And I bet they add some stupid new patents to keep the thing going.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 12:48:30 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 21, 2021, 12:42:22 pmDVI can do 1080p 60Hz max (single link) and you still need external adaptor with license paid. Based on use case, there might be a chance that patents relevant to your use case have expired. However once they sue you, you already lost, since litigation will cost you way more than paying the license even if you win in court. And most likely you'll go bankrupt way before that.

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 12:53:27 pm
content: DVI can do a bit more than FullHD, it is up to 1920x1200 at 60Hz with reduced blanking, but thats just nitpicking

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 01:04:55 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 21, 2021, 12:58:10 pmBut they can obliterate sales of all of your products in US, including those which don't have HDMI. I infringed quite a lot myself BTW.

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 03:10:44 pm
content: It's probably the same as USB and BT. In the end come companies just place a USB connector and write in blue color 'wireless connectivity'. Everyone knows what's up.On the side note I have lately seen a wall wart that had a USB a socket and was 9V. Usb to dc-jack cable was included. This came with a cheap Chinese toy keyboard (instrument)

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 03:15:19 pm
content: Quote from: poorchava on January 21, 2021, 03:10:44 pmYou can use USB as much as you want without paying any royalties as long as do not use their logo, but not HDMI.

author: Jan Audio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 04:54:13 pm
content: Eh, i dont get it, if you want to use HDMI in your product you have to pay ?I would not pay until i got sued, and sue them for being monopolists.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 05:05:45 pm
content: Quote from: Jan Audio on January 21, 2021, 04:54:13 pmLogic of someone who will end up busted and ruined. If anything, you want to be low-key and legally unreachable if they notice you, like sitting in China as blueskull.QuoteLOL, good luck with that.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 05:06:40 pm
content: AFAIK, DisplayPort could be an alternative with no licensing issues, although obviously DP is still a lot less common than HDMI, so a product having only a DP output may not be easy to sell.But you can find DP/HDMI cables, and they are not that expensive. Thoughts on this?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 05:15:23 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on January 21, 2021, 05:05:45 pmIf you're small, they won't bother suing you, because it will cost them more then they would get from you. If you're set-up as a limited company, then your house should be safe. If you're big enough to afford the licence, then pay, as you're big enough to be worth suing.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 05:32:58 pm
content: RE: Liscencing:Increasing IP activity in Asia has resulted in the Chinese Govt starting to enforce IP and patents in China.The HDMI fee is like that of THX, Dolby, ASTC, etc, where compliance to a PHY and data protocol is included.You can violate any law US or Chinese, BUT the products sold can be stopped by Customs if trademarks, copyrights, encryption or patents are violented.consider your ETHICS.Jon

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2021, 06:14:23 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on January 21, 2021, 12:39:10 pmIf you want to use the HDMI connector for other signals (like DVI) I think it boils down to one simple question: is the HDMI connector patented or not?It looks like about the only two things the OP needs is the connector and (perhaps, nice to have) the trademark.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 07:05:26 am
content: You are lucky. Europeans are such sheep that when the government says, they just obey. Remaining resistance is trivially squashed by force. Maybe it's changing for the better in the West these days, but it's also changing for the worse hereQuoteWell, I for one say there is nothing ethical about the entertainment industry, screw them

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 07:10:03 am
content: We are getting dangerously close to politics here -- but I think there is something to be said for a government which is based on both, dependable legalrightsand dependable legalobligationsfor its citizens.

author: viperidae
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 07:12:12 am
content: Being an "HDMI adopter" mentions nothing about patents. It gives you rights to use the logos and trademarks.If you're not violating and trademarks or copyrights, there is nothing to stop you using and HDMI compatible connector sending HDMI compatible signals.It's exactly the same situation as USB, except being a USB member gets you a VID to use. You pay for access to the specifications and use of the logos.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 10:21:25 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 22, 2021, 07:10:03 amYou saved us from danger, we are back in the safe realm of speculation

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 10:36:28 am
content: Quote from: jonpaul on January 21, 2021, 05:32:58 pmYes, but it is also worth considering ETHICS from the licensor point of view.At what point do overly broad patents and design rights licensing transform from ethical business practice into protection racket and 'highway robber' toll gate.It is all too common business practice, and the 'lower level' you can insert the toll gate the better (e.g. disk storage filesystem patents are particularly obnoxious).

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 01:06:27 pm
content: Hello all:The HDMI and other video interfaces such as USB-C, are required to include certain DRM = Digital Rights management restrictions, normally in hardware or firmware.Thus the HDMI may work fine for a video game, but show a violation notice in case you try to play a movie that is hackled or illegally copied.I am unsure the exact implementation or requirements on HDMI manufacturers.See for instance HDCP:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_ProtectionThe general topic of IP and patent rights and standards implementation is a huge area and cannot be distilled in these forum notes.The law varies in every country and region like EU.With Best Regards,Jon

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 01:11:25 pm
content: Quote from: jonpaul on January 22, 2021, 01:06:27 pmIronically, pirated movies would often play just fine without HDCP, but legitimate movies would refuse to play.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 01:39:43 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 22, 2021, 01:11:25 pmYep this is another case where pirating is actually more convenient than buying it because silly DRM mechanisms are already bypassed so they don't cause trouble.HDCP is a good example of a pointless DRM measure. It only really stops you from playing back a movie on multiple TVs using a dumb HDMI splitter that simply repeats the signal. HDMI recording devices simply refuse to record HDCP steams in software. If that doesn't work then you can simply buy a cheep dongle that takes in a HDCP HDMI signal, pretends its a TV, decodes it, then transmits it back out as a regular HDMI signal that is trivial to record on any HDMI recording device, giving you a video file you can put up on torrent sites. Its not stopping anyone apart from the dumbest of pirates, yet causes headaches for consumers.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 01:48:23 pm
content: But it wasn't supposed to be like that. The HDCP stripping dongles aren't part of the specIt took some serious reverse engineering or leak, I don't remember, to make them possible.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2021, 02:08:26 pm
content: Quote from: magic on January 22, 2021, 01:48:23 pmNor is patching executable files of software to be able to run without a valid license. They didn't have a boss at <Insert software company here> come into a meeting and say "Alright we also need this feature where if you open the exe file in a hex editor and put 0x74892AA at offset 27745 the software runs without a valid license in case the user locks him self out". Some smart pirate just figured out that it runs without a license if you do that.Instead the boss comes in furious that there software was cracked and gets them to implement a more advanced DRM measure they bought from Company X where it does funky on the fly decryption of code using weird methods. Then it turns out this weird decryption method actually fails on 3% of PCs out there or makes the software perform like crap on 10% of users machines. Then a smart pirate comes along again, putting a lot more work into it to strip it out and make a cracked version that actually runs on 100% of machines at full performance.The 2nd DRM example actually works however. It is used by game developers to slow down cracking efforts from hours into weeks or months or sometimes even years. Allowing them to market the game in the critical first days of launch without competing with pirated versions.

author: usagi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2021, 07:38:09 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on November 30, 2018, 06:04:53 pmthis is no longer the case. the hdmi licensing org recently came down like a ton of bricks on analog devices. you cannot purchase any device capable of encoding an hdmi signal -even without hdcp- without an hdmi license.digi-key, arrow, mouser, etc. now categorize analog devices hdmi parts as "hdmi and/or hdcp controlled" and require you to submit written proof that you have an HDMI license. i have had my analog devices non-hdcp component orders rejected from all three of them with exactly this reason.here is the response from analog devices to me, verbatim:Quotei spoke with the AD engineers directly on the phone about this. apparently this is still a rather sensitive subject for them. I dont know exactly what HDMI threatened them with but AD is still freaked out about it.here's a thread on their support forums where they receive a similar response:https://ez.analog.com/video/f/q-a/533640/alternative-to-adv7513---ultimate-goal-is-vga-to-displayport/383742#383742in short, the HDMI organization has slammed the door in the face of hobbyists. unless you can cough up a $5k-$10k license, you cannot even purchase eval boards.maybe displayport is a better option?

author: Unixon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2021, 08:37:58 am
content: Quote from: usagi on February 03, 2021, 07:38:09 amWhat kind of legal stuff (patents, etc) HDMI holds that enables them to ask for licenses / money in that way and when does the clock run out?I'm not doing anything with HDMI hardware yet, but this very familiar behavior of HDMI is punishable at least by massive ban and oblivion.Quote from: usagi on February 03, 2021, 07:38:09 amTL;DR the thread. Are there any obstacles for DisplayPort?

author: Miyuki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2021, 07:48:42 pm
content: Do any of you source chips from ITE? They have a nice variety of HDMI interfaces and converters.Just none of the classic (like Mouser and so) distributors sell their devices.

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2021, 12:31:51 pm
content: Hello and sorry for reopening an older thread, but does any of you know what the licensing required is with regards to use of a DVI? As obviously, DVI uses the same signals as HDMI does. I could not find a definitive answer, if it is legal to just simply use DVI with a DVI transmitter chip, or if there is some licensing bullshit pushed even on the DVI?Bottomline: The only option that is so called "license free" seems to be Displayport, but it seems also, there is very little ICs to support this and if I happen to find some DP transmitter chip, you are required to get an NDA for datasheet and all sorts of other FUCKING CRAP.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 30, 2021, 12:39:31 pm
content: AFAIK DVI is licensing free.

author: Miyuki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2021, 04:33:38 pm
content: Main difference:• DVI is limited to the RGB color space. HDMI supports RGB, but also supports YCbCr 4:4:4 and YCbCr 4:2:2.These spaces are widely used outside of computer graphics.• HDMI supports the transport of packets, needed for digital audio, in addition to digital video. An HDMI sourcedifferentiates between a legacy DVI display and an HDMI-capable display by reading the display's EDID block.So technically HDMI monitor can receive a DVI signal.That is the legal part.Data format is not the sameDVI standard was abandoned as Digital Display Working Group (DDWG) naturally deceased.The fee comes in when you use the actual HDMI spec and implement HDMI stuff like Audio, CEC and actually calling it HDMI.Plus DVI is now 22year old so patents are expired. There used to be royalties for big adopters

author: Omega Glory
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 12:22:56 am
content: I'm young and dumb, so maybe I'm missing something, but it sure seems depressing that standards like HDMI aren't open and free to use.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 01:06:48 am
content: Quote from: Miyuki on April 30, 2021, 04:33:38 pmPerhaps a workaround would be to release the product outputting only DVI out of the box but then have an "unofficial, community" firmware that enables HDMI features?

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 01:24:45 am
content: Quote from: usagi on February 03, 2021, 07:38:09 amF--K them, just go here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/fpga/hdmi-dvi-encoder-with-audio-smart-quartus-pll-integration-in-systemverilog/msg3430622/#msg3430622The 'legality' part is when you 'enable' HDMI mode on my linked HDMI/DVI transmitter core, it generates an info packet buried in the video signal. The generation and transmission of this packet might be where they nail you legally. However, it is the only way to get the audio and/or YUV component color space support.

author: KaneTW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 02:20:11 am
content: Fuck them, but in a wholly different way. Just use DP.I'm designing a consumer product right now and there's absolutely zero chance I'll include a HDMI port. Not happening.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 03:05:37 am
content: Quote from: KaneTW on May 01, 2021, 02:20:11 amLess connectivity with smaller or cheaper TVs, video projectors, home theater systems.I don't even own a single display with display port, yet every monitor, TV and video projector I own does have an HDMI port.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 03:15:54 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on May 01, 2021, 03:05:37 amInclude a Displayport to HDMI cable with the product.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 03:41:47 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on May 01, 2021, 03:15:54 amafaik it would need an active adapter, else the display port needs to be dual mode capable of HDMI

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 03:43:11 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on May 01, 2021, 01:24:45 amis it actually an issue unless you say the magic word HDMI?

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 04:30:04 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on May 01, 2021, 03:43:11 amPerhaps you can corrupt the packet in such a way that you may still transmit audio and optionally YUV mode, yet it can no longer be considered a true HDMI signal. Technically, this might get you off the hook.I wonder what would happen if you try to stuff a dumb audio packet into the DVI framework (it's nothing but video with sync and data enable for the picture area), or an audio packets similar to DP into the stream. I know DP's modes require fixed speed high GBPS transmitters.Sending a DVI transport into an HDMI cable usually works with the standard HDTV modes on every HDMI display I tried to date.

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 06:20:22 am
content: Quote from: KaneTW on May 01, 2021, 02:20:11 amI would like to also be explore that way, can you point me and others where to source DP transmitter/receiver chips that accept HD video in a parallel DPI interface? If any of this even exists with a public documentation...Thanx

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 06:33:38 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on May 01, 2021, 03:15:54 am... which of course would be an HDMI-licensed product.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 10:47:29 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on May 01, 2021, 04:30:04 amI guess you can use or soon will be able to use HDMI (without calling it HDMI) if it adheres to some of oldest versions or does not use newer features as it's a standard from 2002. Licensing is based on a patent pool, and most of those patents should have already expired, but they add new patents to keep the thing going. However the big question here is not if you are right but if they will go after you. It's a common practice in US when patent trolls sue you over some nonsense patent which you don't even violate. The problem is you lose even if you win in court, since litigation is very expensive. Many simply cannot afford the litigation to begin with, they will go under before litigation ends. Therefore most small companies simply pay the ransom.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 01:19:06 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on May 01, 2021, 10:47:29 amafair there was recently a similar discussion about USB

author: KaneTW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 01:23:09 pm
content: Quote from: Yansi on May 01, 2021, 06:20:22 ameghttps://toshiba.semicon-storage.com/ap-en/semiconductor/product/interface-bridge-ics-for-mobile-peripheral-devices/display-interface-bridge-ics/detail.TC358767AXBG.html-- this is DPI => DP but you can probably find other directions as well.Quote from: BrianHG on May 01, 2021, 03:05:37 amYeah, it's not something possible for every product. In this case (due to the market segment) it's not an issue.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2021, 11:39:00 pm
content: HDMI spec is easily findable online, HDCP spec is also freely available (straight from the horse's mouth - didn't realise they would give away something like that, but it is) and master key was known since long ago.Go to China and have fun...

author: VEGETA
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2021, 06:54:51 am
content: Quote from: Miyuki on February 03, 2021, 07:48:42 pmhello,I want to ask if HDCP license is necessary for buying ITE chips like IT6265 or just normal 5k$ HDMI license? if you don't want HDCP that is... its license is 15k$!I am in need of an IC which can deliver 4k60 digital video + audio but without heavy licensing.

author: lacek
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 12:18:58 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on May 01, 2021, 06:33:38 amYes, the correct way is to not include the cable. But one can sell a cable separately, just like any "computer store", just make it a suggested additional purchase. Just like "extra warranty" is often a suggested additional purchase.I also think that users can figure out themselves that an adapter would be needed.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 05:26:36 am
content: Quote from: lacek on July 05, 2021, 12:18:58 amWell you could just include the cable in the box too, just buy an existing cable off the market. Since DP and HDMI are not compatible means the cable has to have electronics inside to do the conversion, so your own product never actually generates a HDMI signal or has the HDMI logo on it. It is the converter cable that generates a HDMI signal, so the company that made the cable needs a HDMI license.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 07:54:15 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 05, 2021, 05:26:36 amIt's questionable. Inexpensive adaptors are simply level shifters. DP output needs to generate HDMI signal anyway. Google DP++ or Displayport dual-mode.

author: Just_another_Dave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 03:14:11 pm
content: Quote from: Omega Glory on May 01, 2021, 12:22:56 amThe problem is that the word standard is used for describing many different things which usually leads to concussions. During the recent years in the open source world, it has become a common thing to call open specifications “standards” which has led to a belief that in general standards are freely available and free to use. On the other hand, hdmi is created and maintained by an association of companies and therefore, they can charge royalties on they users as they own that technology and it is their product indeed (just as ARM sells their IP to manufacturers that want to make processors).Additionally, ISO standards (or their equivalent ones from the corresponding institution in each country) are more or less specifications recognized by countries (they contain other information such as definitions and tests required to be able to say that your devices complies it) and can be used for some legal purposes such as avoiding some required measurements by using the pretested design they provide. As far as I know, you can implement them without paying anything to the standardization institution, yet they might require the use of a patented technology and therefore paying the corresponding royalties to its holder. Nevertheless, the standardization institution usually sells really expensive copies of them, but they can be found at some libraries.Standards are indeed a particularly complex thing that changes a lot between countries (for example in my country we have different words for each of those things and they are completely different things according to our law), so the above explanation might not be totally correct, but I hope it helps understand that the reason why hdmi requires paying royalties is because it is a product sold by a “company” instead of something like the C99 ISO standard or python specification

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 03:58:25 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 05, 2021, 07:54:15 amWell it still needs at least conversion, so without having an adapter cable the DisplayPort device is not capable of outputting HDMI. Even if it can reproduce the correct timings, it can't reproduce correct voltage levels so it can't be called HDMI. Just like you can't invent a USB bus with 5V data lines and still call it USB.Also the dual mode feature is not a mandatory feature for all DisplayPort devices. So you can simply chose to implement a version of DP that does not support such simple adapters. In that case you don't even generate any timings similar to HDMI. All the signals you output are pure DisplayPort, so the entirety of the HDMI signal must be generated inside the adapter cable. For all your device knows there might be an active DP to VGA adapter on that cable.The interface standard consortium usually are more concerned about what you stick the logo onto. For example anyone can create a USB 1.0 low speed device by just bitbanging data out of a MCU. You can even sell this device and the USB consortium won't come knocking on your door. The thing you are not allowed to do is use the copyrighted logos on your device without there approval (aka pay the licensing fee).

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 04:14:27 pm
content: To Omega: "depressing that standards like HDMI aren't open and free to use"The standards organizations eg IEC, IEEE, AES, etc take considerable time and cost to create and maintain them.Manufactures and compliant users pay the small fess to get the genuine and up to date standards.If you spent years to write a book, movie script or compose music, and that is your profession, would you give it all away?Enjoy,Jon

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 04:27:47 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on July 05, 2021, 03:58:25 pmActive adapters are quite expensive though. Like $15+ for junk from China.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 05:01:41 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on July 05, 2021, 03:58:25 pmMore to it, you could have the factory firmware only enable the pure DP modes and a "community maintained" firmware that also enables the HDMI compatible modes.

author: Hydron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2021, 06:48:37 pm
content: Quote from: jonpaul on July 05, 2021, 04:14:27 pmExcept that the fees to access standards are only small for larger companies selling many products. Small players are forced to pay the same price for a small fraction of the use that larger ones will get out of it, sometimes even being forced to buy a "pack" of standards at a crippling kilo$s price just to legally own a single necessary one. There really should be a better way other than piracy that doesn't f**k the little guys. IMHO this should extend down to $free for trivial/hobby/research users - if you're trying to recoup costs charge the serious $ to sellers of millions of devices.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2021, 05:24:10 am
content: Yeah standards are way too expensive.But still they generally won't come after you unless you infringe on there trademarked logos. Often to play it safe when mentioning the names like HDMI USB SD...etc there is a asterisk footnote mentioning that such and such is a trademark of company X.Luckily once a standard becomes popular you can find some sort of spec online with enough digging.What is worse is that things like CE approval list out a requirement to pass some listed out standards. Yet you have to actually buy these standards to read what they require. So they make it a law that selling electronics on a whole continent requires adherence to a piece of paper that you need to buy to see what says on it. Aren't laws supposed to be publicly available so that anyone can read them and make sure they are not doing something wrong? Surely someone as big as the EU could buy the publication rights to those standards and post them up publicly on there own website.

author: Hydron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2021, 08:27:35 am
content: If you ever find yourself needing an EN standard, then go have a look at the Estonian standards body page - they have their own re-branded (literally calls out what EN standard it is copied from) versions of most of them, at a FAR lower price than many other European sources will charge. Many also let you view them for a day for something like 2EUR (handy if you need to just check a single thing - printscreen doesn't get disabled)

author: VEGETA
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2021, 09:33:34 am
content: the point is that IC manufacturers refuse to sell you their HDMI ICs unless you have a license.

author: Just_another_Dave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2021, 09:58:33 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 06, 2021, 05:24:10 amIn some countries they are available at university libraries (at some public libraries they might also have them) and, in the case of Spain, at your local guild (although in this case they are just available for members). Additionally, the standards bodies of some countries offer yearly subscriptions to access all of them online for a smaller price of a single one in pdf (and they notify you if the ones you’re using get updated). They also sell books with a simplified version of a set of related standards for a reasonable price

author: usagi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 12:33:44 am
content: Quote from: VEGETA on July 06, 2021, 09:33:34 ambasically HDMI is hostile to the hobbyist and eevblog community.displayport has no such limitations.wish dave would make a video about this. more people need to be aware of this.

author: usagi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 12:39:35 am
content: Quote from: jonpaul on July 05, 2021, 04:14:27 pmyou want a world where PNG, WAV, and IPv4 is licensed. i really don't like this world you envision.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 05:20:36 am
content: Adobe went the closed license route for PDF.But of course like any format once it got popular people started to reverse engineer the format. This caused cheap/free PDF software to pop up, so people used it for making PDF documents. However the reverse engineering was not quite perfect, so some of these PDF files would not open correctly in the official Adobe PDF reader while they would open perfectly fine in a reader using the reverse engineered spec. So it was starting to make there product look bad and eventually they made the spec available to avoid the PDF format becoming incompatible with itself.So sometimes hiding the spec can come back to haunt you.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 07:05:33 am
content: Not gonna happen to HDMI due to patents. But you can try

author: Just_another_Dave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 07:25:48 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 20, 2021, 05:20:36 amPDF is in fact ISO standardized (probably to fulfill the requirement that some countries have of using standardized formats if possible instead of closed ones). Its standard is available here:https://www.iso.org/standard/75839.html

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 07:48:31 am
content: Quote from: Just_another_Dave on July 20, 2021, 07:25:48 amAnd became such only 15 years after its release.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 10:09:31 am
content: Quote from: usagi on July 20, 2021, 12:33:44 amWith reference to hobbyists, which limitations and hostility are you thinking of specifically?I have certainly used HDMI in a few hobby projects: Open-source FPGA cores, HDMI jacks, and driver ICs (if I want to use them) are freely available. And so far I have not received a cease-and-desist order for calling the interface on my boards "HDMI" -- and in my understanding I am free to call it that, since the trademark does not interfere with personal/non-commercial use.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 10:55:34 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 20, 2021, 07:48:31 amThere's still a problem with editable documents. M$ Turd has often been used, but the problem with that is, apart from being propriatory, it often falls over when opened in a different version. M$ tried to rectify that with .docx format, but it still isn't perfect. LibreOffice tends to do better at displaying properly in different versions, but isn't 100% compatible with M$.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2021, 11:49:30 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 20, 2021, 10:55:34 amYeah MS Word documents have the exact same problem where other people built compatible editors from the reverse engineered spec, but are again not quite entirely compatible with the real thing.Tho this case is likely at least in part due to legacy baggage. The format is pretty old and they kept adding features in every version of Office, so it likely has bugs in it that have been worked around in certain ways, so in order to perfectly reproducibly render the word document you also must perfectly reproduce the subtle bugs that help make the document render correctly in the official Microsoft Word. At this point its likely that even if Microsoft wanted to write an official spec on how to correctly generate a Word document, they most likely could not because nobody there knows all of the intricate details and nuances of how the format works.This sort of format bloat can quickly happen if people are allowed to just glue on features onto a format without someone moderating it all and making sure all the additions fit in with everything else nicely. Something that could have easily happened as the MS Office team gets turned around multiple times to a point where the guy who came up with the format is no longer there.