HDMI Forum Rejects Open-Source HDMI 2.1 Driver Support Sought By AMD

[F.Ultra]

Wtf dude? That is not what I said at all... Actually as I've said repeatedly AMD can't make an implementation, they're already tainted, but people like us -can- I'll let my words speak for itself. You seem to have a comprehension problem, which is ok, but now that I'm recognizing it I just have to let your opinion not bother me.

What you said exactly was "Clean room reverse engineering is itself proof beyond doubt that the patented proprietary implementation wasn't touched", since the only implementation done so far was the one from AMD you could not have refereed to anything else. But even if you didn't mean AMD here that changes nothing since clean-room have zero effect on a patent.

And by the way, just because it seems some people believe you can, you can't patent ideas. That's NOT what patents are. Your patent has to be sufficient to prove that it would work in reality exactly as described.

EDIT: Prototypes aren't required to prove your patent, but it's how most patents are derived. You make something and then you recognize that you've got some things that are patentable

Yes you cannot patent ideas as such, it was not my intention to give that impression. I just used the word idea to distinguish from the implementation that is copyrightable. A better word is probably "solution", but it makes no difference on the discussion at hand.

As an example, IBM have a patent on the method of RCU (Read Copy Update). No matter how you try and code around that, as long as the process is similar to the steps of r+c+u then your software is violating that patent. Meanwhile copyright only covers the exact code that IBM have for their internal implementation of RCU in AIX.

And then you have the famous XOR patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4197590A/en) that (among many things) brought Commodore down.

[F.Ultra]

Do you have a link that says so? Canonical would certainly have made this public but I cant find anything.

If you take a look at VLC which basically any Linux distro (even debian which is super careful with patented stuff) ships: https://www.videolan.org/legal.html
I don't see why this wouldn't be possible with an HDMI driver.

Canonical licenses H.264 - https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/05/...-count-updated I also remember that they licenses the MP3 patent before it expired but there does not seem to by any info on it left on the Internet that I could find. The restricted package also containes DeCSS but CSS was AFAIK never patented.

Without a license Canonical would be sued for patent infringement by supplying such a package so it's quite obvious that they have a license.

[duby229]

What you said exactly was "Clean room reverse engineering is itself proof beyond doubt that the patented proprietary implementation wasn't touched", since the only implementation done so far was the one from AMD you could not have refereed to anything else. But even if you didn't mean AMD here that changes nothing since clean-room have zero effect on a patent.



Yes you cannot patent ideas as such, it was not my intention to give that impression. I just used the word idea to distinguish from the implementation that is copyrightable. A better word is probably "solution", but it makes no difference on the discussion at hand.

As an example, IBM have a patent on the method of RCU (Read Copy Update). No matter how you try and code around that, as long as the process is similar to the steps of r+c+u then your software is violating that patent. Meanwhile copyright only covers the exact code that IBM have for their internal implementation of RCU in AIX.

And then you have the famous XOR patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4197590A/en) that (among many things) brought Commodore down.

What you are saying above is true for AMD but not for people like us. We never made a proprietary implementation, we never saw the specifications, we didn't influence its design in any way. If it can be proven in a court of law that it is necessary for interoperability then it is legal for -us- to reverse engineer it using clean room techniques.

[NeoMorpheus]

On the bright side, I can confirm the current DP to HDMI adapters work for 4k 120Hz RGB with VRR and HDR on linux.
Tested with a Cable Matters 102101 adapter with VMM7100 chip and firmware 7.01.124, a Radeon 6900XT, Nobara 39 and a LG C1.

per their page VRR/Freesync is not supported.

i got this cable from them and same story, everything works except VRR/Freesync.

https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1398-154-displayport-to-8k-hdmi-cable.aspx

[F.Ultra]

What you are saying above is true for AMD but not for people like us. We never made a proprietary implementation, we never saw the specifications, we didn't influence its design in any way. If it can be proven in a court of law that it is necessary for interoperability then it is legal for -us- to reverse engineer it using clean room techniques.

Fair use does not exist for Patents, only copyright. And again, there exists no clean room for patents. This is why companies are hit by patent trolls suing them for patents the companies have never seen or been aware of, with specifications that they never saw and from inventors that they had zero contact with.

Seriously, you are correct in everything that you write up to the moment you do the s/copyright/patents/g

[duby229]

Fair use does not exist for Patents, only copyright. And again, there exists no clean room for patents. This is why companies are hit by patent trolls suing them for patents the companies have never seen or been aware of, with specifications that they never saw and from inventors that they had zero contact with.

Seriously, you are correct in everything that you write up to the moment you do the s/copyright/patents/g

I'm not mixing anything up, it's not a patent infringement if you don't infringe on any patents. And that is exactly why clean room techniques are legal. It documents the entire process. Where patents apply you find another way and it leaves legal proof of that.

EDIT: It's not a patent issue, it's a license issue and that's copyright law.

[bridgman]

That are for software for which Canonical/Ubuntu have licensed the patent for use by it's users.

Are you sure ? My understanding was that when you check that box you are basically saying that you have independently obtained licenses for the patented materials (eg from Fluendo) and that you are *not* expecting Canonical/Ubuntu to have done so.

IOW the distro is saying "hey these are patented but not licensed by us" and you are saying "Yeah yeah whatever".

[hartree]

per their page VRR/Freesync is not supported.

i got this cable from them and same story, everything works except VRR/Freesync.

https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1398-154-displayport-to-8k-hdmi-cable.aspx

With my setup it works, it shows up as Freesync and acts the same way it does over the built-in HDMI, only 4L10 FRL instead of TMDS.
Interestingly VRR doesn't work on Windows despite the AMD driver detecting compatibility, and there is some overscan when using the adapter.
Color in Gnome is 10-bit SDR, in gamescope-session 8-bit HDR, but 10-bit HDR was unstable on Windows as well.

[oiaohm]

Fair use does not exist for Patents, only copyright. And again, there exists no clean room for patents.

Right and wrong. Patent laws have what is called "simultaneous invention" and Obviousness.

https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2015/07/simultaneous-invention-as-secondary-evidence-of-ob/

Yes both simultaneous invention possiblity and Obviousness can be proven by clean room development.

If the patented design was not transferred into a clean room(this is by documents or people) and the people working in clean room comes up with the exact same design then the patent is based on something with obviousness so in fact invalid. This does make it very dangerous for patent holders to challenge a clean room implementation thinking that the majority of cases that this has happened the patent holder has lost their patent because the clean room work proved that the patent was obvious so not legal to patent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2TC

There is a issue with the clean room route around patents is that you can end up with a poorer quality replacement that not infringing. Yes this better than nothing.

Its not you cannot do clean room development to get around a patent. The result of clean room development is very different. Copyright clean room gives you implementation that you can use and leaves the original copyright holders license intact. Patent clean room you are doing the clean room to see if you can destroy the patent because you are attempting to prove the patent design is obvious so not legally allowed a patent..

Some party finds out you are doing a clean room to get around their patents be sure they will all out attack because a patent clean room is an offensive move.

Copyright and Patents both can use clean room to get around them. Patents clean room usage is for sure to piss off the patent holder because you were attempting to destroy the patent they have spent money to have so are highly likely to look at all the items they have to sue you out of existence or make your life hard. Clean room is far less aggressive of action with Copyright.

Patent law is a lot more black and white. Copyright you have the fair use greyness where you don't end up destroying the copyright works means to be sold just by clean room actions. Yes patent law also has very hard punishments as in triple to 10 times the infringement cost because you screw up your clean room setup because of willful infringement and willful aversion of the patent and willful attempt to destroy patent.

Trademarks is the part of IP where you cannot use clean room.

Patents you don't see clean room uses a lot because is very high risk/high reward thing where you mostly lose. Yes success-ed with the clean room you destroy the patent but you can also bet that party will never license you a patent again and will refuse todo business with you.

To clean room attack a patent holder you really need to make the choice that you are never going to do business with that patent holder ever again. Clean room against copyright does not have this major downside because its not offensive action.

[tildearrow]

You can get that already. It is distributed via the installer technology known as Windows. Simply install and enjoy!

Enjoy what? The pain of backslashes, workarounds and constant self-breakage?