And here are those companies making that decision
Comment on Why won’t Steam Machine support HDMI 2.1? Digging in on the display standard drama.
who@feddit.org 1 month ago
the HDMI Forum (which manages the official specifications for HDMI standards) has officially blocked any open source implementation of HDMI 2.1.
slazer2au@lemmy.world 1 month ago
bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
You only need to get down the list to broadcom before it becomes obvious this isn’t going to change.
blinfabian@feddit.nl 1 month ago
so pretty much all important companies ☹️
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 month ago
I’m glad more people are hearing how it’s this group of standards assholes who are causing it.
MrSoup@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Laughs in displayport
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I really wish displayport on TVs would take off.
undefinedTruth@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I really wish I could buy big ass dumb monitor at the cost of a similar size smart tv.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Hollywood hates that idea.
zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
That’s the idea
lengau@midwest.social 1 month ago
I don’t know why the Steam Machine doesn’t have DisplayPort 2.0 (release June 2019)…
MrSoup@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Probably because it’s designed to be attached to a TV, which use hdmi.
Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 1 month ago
How, though? I’m not terribly knowledgeable about the law, but I know interoperability is one of the major sources of exceptions to copyright protection, and the whole Google vs Oracle saga would imply there’s nothing illegal about making your own implementation of a standard without permission.
freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
AMD is a member of the HDMI consortium and is probably bound by private agreements to not make open source drivers without permission from the consortium. They did try to get them to budge but they didn’t.
grue@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret laws are all entirely different and have almost nothing to do with each other (don’t be fooled by the property-rights-hating shysters who try to gaslight you into lumping them all as “intellectual property[sic]”).
Trademarks and patents don’t have the same kinds of interoperability exceptions that copyright does, and you can’t claim to “support HDMI™” without licensing rights to those in addition to whatever copyrighted code you might need for the software side of the implementation.
Decq@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So what stops them from supporting HDMI™ 2.1 but just not call it that? As long as they create the code in a clean room scenario I don’t see how they could be liable for damages? Although I assume it has something to with DRM… And then you get into the weeds of the terrible cyber security laws…
Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Assholes.
Croquette@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
They want to make money
Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 month ago
And they’re allowed to. But this is not that.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I can think of a money reason to block open source implementations…
grue@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sure, so does organized crime. What’s your point?
shani66@ani.social 1 month ago
Hey now, organized crime usually has an element of giving back to the community, it’s much more ethical than this!
Croquette@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
The HDMI Forum blocks open source implementations of their spec. They want to keep it closed source so they can charge whatever they want to use their standards.
Big content creators (Disney, Netflix, etc) want TV manufacturers to keep using HDMI because the standard includes a DRM protocol.