HDMI licensing

[Unixon]

i 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. ... in 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.

What 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.

maybe displayport is a better option?

TL;DR the thread. Are there any obstacles for DisplayPort?

[Miyuki]

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.

[Yansi]

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.

[wraper]

AFAIK DVI is licensing free.

[Miyuki]

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 source
differentiates 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 same

DVI 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

[Omega Glory]

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.

[NiHaoMike]

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 source
differentiates 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 same

DVI 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

Perhaps 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?

[BrianHG]

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.

this 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:

As many customers are becoming aware, Analog Devices HDMI parts and eval platforms can no longer be procured unless the end company/ entity is an HDMI licensee or
adopter. You can learn more about HDMI licensing in the organization's website attached here; this is not an Analog Devices mandate but rather a restriction that has
been imposed on us.

Some customers recalled that in the past there was an opening (-P suffixed parts) for those that did not hold an HDCP license and were interested in some of these
audio & video products. However, due to stricter guidelines fairly recently mandated by the governing bodies, only HDMI license holders are now eligible to procure
our HDMI/DVI products. Thus if a part is classified as an HDMI receiver, transmitter, or transceiver the window is now closed even on those -P offerings that might
have been accessible previously. This applies to the ADV7842 and the ADV7511 as you will see at the top of the website product pages.

This caused no end of confusion in the field when it came out of the blue in 2016 because customers recalled the -P option which was generated for those specifically
without the HDCP license. However, whether one now holds the HDCP license or not, it is now a moot point if they do not hold the one for HDMI.

i 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#383742

in 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?

F--K them, just go here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/fpga/hdmi-dvi-encoder-with-audio-smart-quartus-pll-integration-in-systemverilog/msg3430622/#msg3430622

The '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.

[KaneTW]

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.

[BrianHG]

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.

Less 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.

[NiHaoMike]

Less 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.

Include a Displayport to HDMI cable with the product.

[langwadt]

Less 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.

Include a Displayport to HDMI cable with the product.

afaik it would need an active adapter, else the display port needs to be dual mode capable of HDMI

[langwadt]

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.

this 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:

As many customers are becoming aware, Analog Devices HDMI parts and eval platforms can no longer be procured unless the end company/ entity is an HDMI licensee or
adopter. You can learn more about HDMI licensing in the organization's website attached here; this is not an Analog Devices mandate but rather a restriction that has
been imposed on us.

Some customers recalled that in the past there was an opening (-P suffixed parts) for those that did not hold an HDCP license and were interested in some of these
audio & video products. However, due to stricter guidelines fairly recently mandated by the governing bodies, only HDMI license holders are now eligible to procure
our HDMI/DVI products. Thus if a part is classified as an HDMI receiver, transmitter, or transceiver the window is now closed even on those -P offerings that might
have been accessible previously. This applies to the ADV7842 and the ADV7511 as you will see at the top of the website product pages.

This caused no end of confusion in the field when it came out of the blue in 2016 because customers recalled the -P option which was generated for those specifically
without the HDCP license. However, whether one now holds the HDCP license or not, it is now a moot point if they do not hold the one for HDMI.

i 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#383742

in 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?

F--K them, just go here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/fpga/hdmi-dvi-encoder-with-audio-smart-quartus-pll-integration-in-systemverilog/msg3430622/#msg3430622

The '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.

is it actually an issue unless you say the magic word HDMI?

[BrianHG]

is it actually an issue unless you say the magic word HDMI?

Perhaps 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.

[Yansi]

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.

I 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

[ebastler]

Include a Displayport to HDMI cable with the product.

... which of course would be an HDMI-licensed product. 

[wraper]

is it actually an issue unless you say the magic word HDMI?

Perhaps 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.

I 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.

[langwadt]

is it actually an issue unless you say the magic word HDMI?

Perhaps 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.

I 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.

afair there was recently a similar discussion about USB

[KaneTW]

I 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

eg https://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.

Less 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.

Yeah, it's not something possible for every product. In this case (due to the market segment) it's not an issue.

[amyk]

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...

[VEGETA]

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.

hello,

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.

[lacek]

Include a Displayport to HDMI cable with the product.

... which of course would be an HDMI-licensed product. 

Yes, 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.

[Berni]

Include a Displayport to HDMI cable with the product.

... which of course would be an HDMI-licensed product. 

Yes, 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.

Well 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.

[wraper]

Include a Displayport to HDMI cable with the product.

... which of course would be an HDMI-licensed product. 

Yes, 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.

Well 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.

It's questionable. Inexpensive adaptors are simply level shifters. DP output needs to generate HDMI signal anyway. Google DP++ or Displayport dual-mode.

[Just_another_Dave]

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.

The 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