F18A MK2

[Techrev]

 

Do you have examples of HDMI certified companies that would produce boards for small scale projects?

I did a bit of calling around, I have one lead right now. A guy who works for Venture told me to email him, and that he has a friend who can do small projects like this and HDMI is not an issue. I sent off the email, I'll see what comes of it. If that doesn't turn out, I'll have more information, and there are a LOT more places I can call.

[kl99]

Just some input from my side on the topic:

Back in the late 90's the DVD Player manufactors were using the loophole of not the required Region Code Protection by shipping their players locked to one of the six regions codes. The customers then pushed some buttons off the remote control in a certain order to set their player into Regionfree mode.

 

The same could be thought about this device here. It ships without providing any signal on the digital video port to fit all licensing requirements.

User then enter a hidden debug mode which unlocks a digital video output on their device.

I guess it would be sufficient if the sequence how to enter the debug mode is not shown on the offiical page.

 

In case the license period is really running out in 2019, an updated firmware could be released to feature the digital video out of the box.

[Wildstar]

He's not the manufacturer of the board. The company that fabricates and assembles the board is. They have to be hdmi certified, not him. I, also, verified this with hdmi.org. All he has to do is make sure he gets the board built by someone with an hdmi license. Shouldn't be a big deal. Plus, it's the manufacturer who hdmi.org would sue if there's a problem.

 

Not quite. Legally, he'd be considered the manufacturer of the F18A MKII not the custom PCB shop that puts the makes the PCB by contract for him because A) he designed the PCB, B) specified the components, and C) engineered the product itself and and does the final component soldering. Many big companies don't necessarily make the PCB boards themselves. He would be liable not the custom PCB company. if I made the PCB which the components are put on by contract, I wouldn't have to be.I actually have a copy of the Adopter agreement.

 

Now, if I made video cards for the Apple II or the TI's PEB using the F18A MK II, then I'd be responsible for the royalties as the end user product. When the F18A is a drop in replacement for the TI and MSX, then it becomes the end-user product unless we were manufacturing new TI-99/4A motherboards. The thing is, he is responsible for the product as the end-user product if he A) sells to the end user, B) the product is in itself a complete system for delivering HDMI output. However, if I sold the units in a package with an HDMI cable instead of him, then the HDMI Adopter requirements becomes my problem than it would be for him.

 

You can muddy the matter by so called outsourcing the PCB manufacturing process but Matthew is the ones who engineered the product being manufactured and ordering the production of the PCBs but he is still doing part of the manufacturing itself such as soldering components on the little PCB and he is selling directly to the end user. The adopter agreement is about end user products as key to royalty requirements.

 

For example, nVidia doesn't pay HDMI royalty on every video card using their GPU. The video card manufacturer does even though the GPU controller may have all the components on it to drive the HDMI video. Video SOCs can be exempt from the Adopter agreement requirements in certain cases. This device actually has the HDMI connector on it so it's kind of video card in DIP configuration instead of an edge. The line gets blurry in this sense. This is part of the problem we face. From a lawyer point of view, a lawyer can reasonably interpret this as an end user product.

 

 

In short, if he sells directly to the end user, this product, he would be responsible for the HDMI Adopter Agreement and associated royalties. If he sold to another party who then packages into a product packaging with HDMI then that third party becomes the responsible party as the END USER PRODUCT. If the F18A MK II was included in a video card or incorporated into brand new made "TI-99/4A" then the video card or new "TI-99/4A" manufacturer would be required to undergo the HDMI licensing.

 

In the case of someone selling the F18A MKII to the end user, HDMI would go that party who packages the product and sell to end-user. However, they could still fall back to the technical maker of the F18A. In which case, Matthew can further isolate himself through licensing a third-party to be the licensing that manufacturers and sells to customers and others while he collects royalty for the "F18A MKII" Intellectual Property. The Licensee would have to pay royalty to Matthew and to HDMI according to their respective licensing agreements.

 

Who ever licenses F18A MK-II will be legally responsible for HDMI Adopter not Matthew. That maybe a way to skirt around the issue. Matthew doesn't have to legal duties to police the HDMI licensing. HDMI Licensing isn't paying him to police or do the checks on HDMI licensing. If an F18A MK-II licensee complies (or not) with HDMI will not be Matthew's problem. Especially if he open sources the core or otherwise does a non-exclusive licensing. HDMI Licensing Administrators, Inc. can not legally require Matthew to validate that licensees have HDMI license. Matthew doesn't work for them and he can request compensation if they required it. Sure, they can try but you push back. You just police your own intellectual property rights. You can in an agreement have an indemnification clause and that F18A MK-II licensees shall be responsible for obtaining licenses to HDMI intellectual property rights and shall indemnify and hold harmless Matthew of any responsibility over HDMI licensing or penalties for non-compliance and what not.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Wildstar

[Wildstar]

Just some input from my side on the topic:

Back in the late 90's the DVD Player manufactors were using the loophole of not the required Region Code Protection by shipping their players locked to one of the six regions codes. The customers then pushed some buttons off the remote control in a certain order to set their player into Regionfree mode.

 

The same could be thought about this device here. It ships without providing any signal on the digital video port to fit all licensing requirements.

User then enter a hidden debug mode which unlocks a digital video output on their device.

I guess it would be sufficient if the sequence how to enter the debug mode is not shown on the offiical page.

 

In case the license period is really running out in 2019, an updated firmware could be released to feature the digital video out of the box.

 

Some of the key patents for baseline HDMI standard would be running out in 2019 through 2023.

 

I'll be contacting Mr. Tobias and after that, if they keep from dodging the issue. I'll be contacting all the CEOs and Presidents, and other officers of all of the founders of HDMI Licensing Administrators, Inc.

If they won't get them to weigh in, I'll get them to them to provide some feedback.

[Techrev]

 

Not quite. Legally, he'd be considered the manufacturer of the F18A MKII not the custom PCB shop that puts the makes the PCB by contract for him because A) he designed the PCB, B) specified the components, and C) engineered the product itself and and does the final component soldering. Many big companies don't necessarily make the PCB boards themselves. He would be liable not the custom PCB company. if I made the PCB which the components are put on by contract, I wouldn't have to be.I actually have a copy of the Adopter agreement.

 

Now, if I made video cards for the Apple II or the TI's PEB using the F18A MK II, then I'd be responsible for the royalties as the end user product. When the F18A is a drop in replacement for the TI and MSX, then it becomes the end-user product unless we were manufacturing new TI-99/4A motherboards. The thing is, he is responsible for the product as the end-user product if he A) sells to the end user, B) the product is in itself a complete system for delivering HDMI output. However, if I sold the units in a package with an HDMI cable instead of him, then the HDMI Adopter requirements becomes my problem than it would be for him.

 

You can muddy the matter by so called outsourcing the PCB manufacturing process but Matthew is the ones who engineered the product being manufactured and ordering the production of the PCBs but he is still doing part of the manufacturing itself such as soldering components on the little PCB and he is selling directly to the end user. The adopter agreement is about end user products as key to royalty requirements.

 

For example, nVidia doesn't pay HDMI royalty on every video card using their GPU. The video card manufacturer does even though the GPU controller may have all the components on it to drive the HDMI video. Video SOCs can be exempt from the Adopter agreement requirements in certain cases. This device actually has the HDMI connector on it so it's kind of video card in DIP configuration instead of an edge. The line gets blurry in this sense. This is part of the problem we face. From a lawyer point of view, a lawyer can reasonably interpret this as an end user product.

 

 

In short, if he sells directly to the end user, this product, he would be responsible for the HDMI Adopter Agreement and associated royalties. If he sold to another party who then packages into a product packaging with HDMI then that third party becomes the responsible party as the END USER PRODUCT. If the F18A MK II was included in a video card or incorporated into brand new made "TI-99/4A" then the video card or new "TI-99/4A" manufacturer would be required to undergo the HDMI licensing.

 

In the case of someone selling the F18A MKII to the end user, HDMI would go that party who packages the product and sell to end-user. However, they could still fall back to the technical maker of the F18A. In which case, Matthew can further isolate himself through licensing a third-party to be the licensing that manufacturers and sells to customers and others while he collects royalty for the "F18A MKII" Intellectual Property. The Licensee would have to pay royalty to Matthew and to HDMI according to their respective licensing agreements.

 

Who ever licenses F18A MK-II will be legally responsible for HDMI Adopter not Matthew. That maybe a way to skirt around the issue. Matthew doesn't have to legal duties to police the HDMI licensing. HDMI Licensing isn't paying him to police or do the checks on HDMI licensing. If an F18A MK-II licensee complies (or not) with HDMI will not be Matthew's problem. Especially if he open sources the core or otherwise does a non-exclusive licensing. HDMI Licensing Administrators, Inc. can not legally require Matthew to validate that licensees have HDMI license. Matthew doesn't work for them and he can request compensation if they required it. Sure, they can try but you push back. You just police your own intellectual property rights. You can in an agreement have an indemnification clause and that F18A MK-II licensees shall be responsible for obtaining licenses to HDMI intellectual property rights and shall indemnify and hold harmless Matthew of any responsibility over HDMI licensing or penalties for non-compliance and what not.

 

I thought I responded to this, anyway, sorry if it's a double post. I would agree with you, if he was assembling the board. In my post I mentioned them assembling the board, which is a different thing. Designing and engineering are not manufacturing. There is a possibility that a manufacturer may want to have their engineers look over the project, but that would be something negotiated in the cost of manufacture. I think you're misreading my post and making quite a few incorrect assumptions about it. You would have to ensure that the company manufacturing the board was HDMI licensed and was willing to license the final product, as well. There could be costs for testing, etc. I don't know, I haven't talked to anyone yet. I don't know if the PCB fabricator Mathew is going through now is even HDMI licensed. Either way, the idea is to have the board manufactured by someone else, something that should not be difficult at a reasonable price.

 

And, yes, if he did something like include an hdmi cable in the final product, it could change things. But, I believe I could buy an HDMI cable from a manufacturer that fully assembled those HDMI cables, and sell them independently without having to be an adopter. It's about manufacture, not sell.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Techrev

[MrPix]

 

I thought I responded to this, anyway, sorry if it's a double post. I would agree with you, if he was assembling the board. In my post I mentioned them assembling the board, which is a different thing. Designing and engineering are not manufacturing. There is a possibility that a manufacturer may want to have their engineers look over the project, but that would be something negotiated in the cost of manufacture. I think you're misreading my post and making quite a few incorrect assumptions about it. You would have to ensure that the company manufacturing the board was HDMI licensed and was willing to license the final product, as well. There could be costs for testing, etc. I don't know, I haven't talked to anyone yet. I don't know if the PCB fabricator Mathew is going through now is even HDMI licensed. Either way, the idea is to have the board manufactured by someone else, something that should not be difficult at a reasonable price.

 

And, yes, if he did something like include an hdmi cable in the final product, it could change things. But, I believe I could buy an HDMI cable from a manufacturer that fully assembled those HDMI cables, and sell them independently without having to be an adopter. It's about manufacture, not sell.

 

 

It doesn't matter who the manufacturer is - they're just contracted to do the assembly.

 

The producer of the board - the company or individual who designs and sells it - is the party responsible for the HDMI licensing.

[Asmusr]

What if, in theory, Matthew hands over the IPR to an HDMI licensed company that then produces and sells the boards. Only they don't advertise it very well and Matthew is the only buyer of all the 500 boards that they produce. Wouldn't Matthew be allowed to sell them on to other people?

[Wildstar]

 

I thought I responded to this, anyway, sorry if it's a double post. I would agree with you, if he was assembling the board. In my post I mentioned them assembling the board, which is a different thing. Designing and engineering are not manufacturing. There is a possibility that a manufacturer may want to have their engineers look over the project, but that would be something negotiated in the cost of manufacture. I think you're misreading my post and making quite a few incorrect assumptions about it. You would have to ensure that the company manufacturing the board was HDMI licensed and was willing to license the final product, as well. There could be costs for testing, etc. I don't know, I haven't talked to anyone yet. I don't know if the PCB fabricator Mathew is going through now is even HDMI licensed. Either way, the idea is to have the board manufactured by someone else, something that should not be difficult at a reasonable price.

 

And, yes, if he did something like include an hdmi cable in the final product, it could change things. But, I believe I could buy an HDMI cable from a manufacturer that fully assembled those HDMI cables, and sell them independently without having to be an adopter. It's about manufacture, not sell.

 

Have you read the HDMI Adopter agreement? The way matthew can side step the HDMI licensing is that he licensed F18A to a third-party and the third-party who licenses the F18A MK-II technology manufactured (in-house or subcontracting parts of the manufacturing process). The part who is employing the product as a end user product is required to pay HDMI royalty per the HDMI Adopter agreement. I'm actually have the agreement sent to me.

 

For example, I could license the F18A MK-II from Matthew (permitting that he wishes to do that) , hypothetically speaking, I then have the units produced. I could do the PCB in-house or outsource it but legally I would be the manufacturer and distributor of the end-user product if I sell the F18A MKII to the end-user to install and use OR incorporate it in another product such as a video card in the PEB or Apple II, or a cartridge for the C64 or Atari, or incorporate it on the motherboard of a new TI-99/4A or MSX clone. In every situation, I'd become liable to HDMI licensing not Matthew. Why? It is because I am the one putting it out to the end-user consumer as a product for end-user usage.

 

How Matthew gets off the hook is HE DOESN'T MANUFACTURE AND SELL TO THE END-USER.

 

Here is what it says from HDMI.org knowledge base: https://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/kb.aspx

 

Q. What's the difference between the Adopter Agreement and the Test Equipment Maker Agreement, and which one should I sign?

The Adopter Agreement is offered for those parties that desire to make and sell HDMI-based products such as DVD players, set-top boxes, TVs, semiconductors, cables and connectors, etc. The Test Equipment Maker Agreement is offered for those parties that desire to make and sell test equipment such as oscilloscopes, wave form generators and other measurement tools designed to assist manufacturers in using the Compliance Test Specification to test their HDMI products for compliance with the HDMI Specification.

Products Subject to Royalty:

The HDMI royalty is only payable on Licensed Products that will be sold on a stand-alone basis (i.e. that are not incorporated into another Licensed Product that is subject to an HDMI royalty). For example, if a cable or IC is sold to an Adopter who then includes it in a television subject to a royalty, then the cable or IC maker would not pay a royalty, and the Adopter television manufacturer would pay the royalty on the final product. If the cable is sold directly to consumers, then it would be subject to a royalty.

Please see Attachment B of the Adopter Agreement for royalty and annual fee details.

From the license agreement definitions:

1.14 “Licensed Product” means a Cable, Component, Connector, Repeater, Source or Sink.

1.5 “Cable” means a Fully Compliant cable.

1.6 “Component” means a device (whether hardware, software, or combination thereof) which implements a subset of the functionality required of a Sink, Source or Repeater. The Component supplier must reasonably indicate to its customers the HDMI functionality supported by the Component. Furthermore, it must be reasonably possible to design a Fully Compliant Sink, Source or Repeater utilizing the Component as indicated by the supplier.

1.7 “Connector” means a Fully Compliant connector.

1.17 “Repeater” means a Fully Compliant digital electronic device adapted to receive a digital data signal representative of video and/or audio data from a Source or Repeater and to switch and/or retransmit such video and/or audio data to a Repeater or Sink, solely in accordance with the Specification.

1.18 “Sink” means a Fully Compliant digital electronic device adapted to receive and process, from a Source or Repeater, a digital data signal representative of video and/or audio data for rendering such digital data signal to a display (in the case of video data) and/or an audio rendering system (in the case of audio data), solely in accordance with the Specification.

1.19 “Source” means a Fully Compliant digital electronic device adapted to process a digital signal representative of video and/or audio data and, upon processing, to transmit the processed digital data signal or sub-set of such digital data signal to a Repeater or Sink for producing a visual image and/or audio sound as represented by the processed digital data signal, solely in accordance with the Specification.

1.11 “Fully Compliant” means an implementation of all portions of the High-Definition Multimedia Interfaces required for a specific type of Licensed Product, and where such implementation has passed all applicable compliance testing procedures set forth in Section 6.

1.20 “Specification” means the then-current versions, subject to Section 6.3 hereof, of the document entitled High-Definition Multimedia Interface Specification v.1.x (where x is a version number specified in each Specification release), and associated HDMI Compliance Test Specification, authored and published by the Founders and Minor Updates thereto published by the Founders.

6.3 Compliance with Specification Updates. Adopter shall comply with all Minor Updates to the Specification as follows: for Minor Updates that do not require material modifications to product designs or manufacturing processes, compliance must occur within ninety (90) days after written notice to Adopter specifying such Minor Update, and for all other Minor Updates, compliance must occur within eighteen (18) months after written notice to Adopter specifying such Minor Update.

These are all important in the considerations.

[Wildstar]

What if, in theory, Matthew hands over the IPR to an HDMI licensed company that then produces and sells the boards. Only they don't advertise it very well and Matthew is the only buyer of all the 500 boards that they produce. Wouldn't Matthew be allowed to sell them on to other people?

 

In a sense, yes, he could in theory. He merely has to license it to a party. The F18A licensee that manufactures and sells F18A MKII would then have to have the license. As long as the F18A licensee is not an Affiliate per definiton in the Adopter agreement.

 

1.2 “Affiliate” means with respect to any person or entity, an entity that now or hereafter directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such person or entity. “Control” means beneficial ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting stock or equity in an entity. Such entity shall be considered an “Affiliate” only so long as such “control” exists.

 

It is best that Matthew would use a separate legal entity to order and sell (as a retailer) the products than the legal entity that is licensing the IP. In which case, he can license the F18A IP under his name. Then use his LLC to purchase. The Licensee shall be a legally separate entity in which he holds less than 50% interest or legal stake in.

 

In the legal ideal, 0% interest but he could have a 10-20% stake interest but it is easier to keep it looking good by having a long arm relationship. Otherwise, it could creep back on to him to some level. Even if the F18A licensee FAILS to be get an HDMI license, he's not manufacturing it and he would not have to be an HDMI Adopter that way. Use of two separate legal entities and a complete independent third-party as the F18A licensee.

 

As long as he keeps and maintains independence from the manufacturing process beyond merely receiving passive royalties. His licensing agreements could be made such that he would be indemnified from any wrongdoing of an F18A licensee. However, there is NO law that says he has to make sure his licensees obtains HDMI licensing or is it his job to police and do their job for them. He can only say that and make clear that per the license agreement that EACH F18A licensee shall be responsible for obtaining any other licenses including HDMI licenses from their respective IPR holders (IPR = Intellectual Property Rights).

 

It is then up to the individual licensee of the F18A to obtain whatever other licenses that maybe required or risk the consequences for not complying. This risk assessment is up to them and whether they care to give a shit about it or not. We can only speak publicly in a way that not legally condone it but it isn't our job either to police. We aren't paid to police the laws.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Wildstar

[Techrev]

 

In a sense, yes, he could in theory. He merely has to license it to a party. The F18A licensee that manufactures and sells F18A MKII would then have to have the license. As long as the F18A licensee is not an Affiliate per definiton in the Adopter agreement.

 

1.2 “Affiliate” means with respect to any person or entity, an entity that now or hereafter directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such person or entity. “Control” means beneficial ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting stock or equity in an entity. Such entity shall be considered an “Affiliate” only so long as such “control” exists.

 

It is best that Matthew would use a separate legal entity to order and sell (as a retailer) the products than the legal entity that is licensing the IP. In which case, he can license the F18A IP under his name. Then use his LLC to purchase. The Licensee shall be a legally separate entity in which he holds less than 50% interest or legal stake in.

 

In the legal ideal, 0% interest but he could have a 10-20% stake interest but it is easier to keep it looking good by having a long arm relationship. Otherwise, it could creep back on to him to some level. Even if the F18A licensee FAILS to be get an HDMI license, he's not manufacturing it and he would not have to be an HDMI Adopter that way. Use of two separate legal entities and a complete independent third-party as the F18A licensee.

 

As long as he keeps and maintains independence from the manufacturing process beyond merely receiving passive royalties. His licensing agreements could be made such that he would be indemnified from any wrongdoing of an F18A licensee. However, there is NO law that says he has to make sure his licensees obtains HDMI licensing or is it his job to police and do their job for them. He can only say that and make clear that per the license agreement that EACH F18A licensee shall be responsible for obtaining any other licenses including HDMI licenses from their respective IPR holders (IPR = Intellectual Property Rights).

 

It is then up to the individual licensee of the F18A to obtain whatever other licenses that maybe required or risk the consequences for not complying. This risk assessment is up to them and whether they care to give a shit about it or not. We can only speak publicly in a way that not legally condone it but it isn't our job either to police. We aren't paid to police the laws.

 

Or he could just find someone legit who will manufacture it for him with a legit HDMI license and be done with it. The other option is, of course, DVI, VGA, or DisplayPort. Any of which are fine by me. I like HDMI because of the sound and I have everything set up HDMI. I don't want any part of this guys business, I just want him to be successful in creating something I can use in my ColecoVision. If I help, then great, but it's not necessary. I just want to be able to buy the final product. He should talk to his PCB people he already does business with, IMHO, and see what they say. They will be his best source of information. I, personally, as someone who creates things on a daily basis, have run into more than my fair share of double talking shysters who spout on about 99% of 50% of whatever, however. They're entertaining, but predictable. They will always be trying to get something for nothing.

 

In any case, if I do find someplace, or can help, I'll post it, people can track it down on their own as they wish. I have no business interest here, and want none. .

[Techrev]

 

 

It doesn't matter who the manufacturer is - they're just contracted to do the assembly.

 

The producer of the board - the company or individual who designs and sells it - is the party responsible for the HDMI licensing.

I would think that the license was attached to the manufacture, not sale. It's, absolutely, ridiculous to infer that one would have to spend $10,000/year to be able to sell HDMI cables. If they are packaged with another item, and sold together, then it may be the case as you are creating a packaged item. Otherwise, if it's just about the sale of the item, you wouldn't see any of these small stores around ever selling HDMI cables. That's not a very rational assumption. Design is, also, not manufacture. I'm not sure how those 2 things can be confused in anyone's mind, ever. In any case - This is the email I received from Will Bush <wbush@hdmi.org>

 

Feel free to follow up with him. I didn't quite expect to be attacked like this when I'm just trying to help.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi Michael,

 

You are correct currently there are only two license options available…

 

1. $ 5,000 USD annually (term 10yrs) plus royalties quarterly ($0.15-$0.04 USD per unit) and admin fee $1 USD per unit sold
2. $ 10,000 USD annually (term 10yrs) plus royalties quarterly ($0.15-$0.04USD per unit)

 

The royalty rate is dependent on the promotional use of the HDMI® logo, a link to the guide follows: https://www.hdmi.org/download/HDMI_Logo_Usage_for_Royalty_Discount-1-2017.pdf

 

Please note as the licensing Agent HDMI LA does not have the authority to amend the Adopter Agreements which our mandated by the Founders of the HDMI® Digital Interface.

 

Potential options is to identify a supplier from our list of licensed HDMI® Adopters to manufacturer the goods under their license: https://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/adopters_founders.aspx

 

Regards,

 

Will Bush

Sr. Brand Protection Manager

HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc. (HDMI LA)

550 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 515, San Jose, CA 95128

Office: 408.861.4886 Mobile: 408.718.3672

 

The terms HDMI, HDMI High-Definition Multimedia Interface, and the HDMI Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Techrev

[Wildstar]

I would think that the license was attached to the manufacture, not sale. It's, absolutely, ridiculous to infer that one would have to spend $10,000/year to be able to sell HDMI cables. If they are packaged with another item, and sold together, then it may be the case as you are creating a packaged item. Otherwise, if it's just about the sale of the item, you wouldn't see any of these small stores around ever selling HDMI cables. That's not a very rational assumption. Design is, also, not manufacture. I'm not sure how those 2 things can be confused in anyone's mind, ever. In any case - This is the email I received from Will Bush <wbush@hdmi.org>

 

Feel free to follow up with him. I didn't quite expect to be attacked like this when I'm just trying to help.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi Michael,

 

You are correct currently there are only two license options available…

 

1. $ 5,000 USD annually (term 10yrs) plus royalties quarterly ($0.15-$0.04 USD per unit) and admin fee $1 USD per unit sold
2. $ 10,000 USD annually (term 10yrs) plus royalties quarterly ($0.15-$0.04USD per unit)

 

The royalty rate is dependent on the promotional use of the HDMI® logo, a link to the guide follows: https://www.hdmi.org/download/HDMI_Logo_Usage_for_Royalty_Discount-1-2017.pdf

 

Please note as the licensing Agent HDMI LA does not have the authority to amend the Adopter Agreements which our mandated by the Founders of the HDMI® Digital Interface.

 

Potential options is to identify a supplier from our list of licensed HDMI® Adopters to manufacturer the goods under their license: https://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/adopters_founders.aspx

 

Regards,

 

Will Bush

Sr. Brand Protection Manager

HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc. (HDMI LA)

550 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 515, San Jose, CA 95128

Office: 408.861.4886 Mobile: 408.718.3672

 

The terms HDMI, HDMI High-Definition Multimedia Interface, and the HDMI Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc.

 

Alright. I may step into the game of HDMI licensing but it may still be some months out still and I would probably have to have some kind of crowdfunding to get the ball rolling. In my business, which is currently developing a online platform which involves augmented and VR technology so in the process I could slide the cost of becoming an HDMI Adopter under the radar and subsidize the cost of such a thing but it is still a bit out there to get the ball in play. I wouldn't want do that at this moment in time. These AR/VR projects are currently being financed out of pocket but with crowdfunding and other funding sources, taking care of HDMI licensing wouldn't be an issue.

 

It's a matter of timing.

[jjh76]

Just a thought but, if this was uploaded as a shared project on PCBWay so that we could order it from them with their assembly service, who would be responsible for the licensing?

[Wildstar]

Just a thought but, if this was uploaded as a shared project on PCBWay so that we could order it from them with their assembly service, who would be responsible for the licensing?

 

Legally, that is an interesting idea. Based on the language of the Adopter agreement, this might actually fall into a loophole because if the end user makes it themselves by having the PCB made (note: PCBWay isn't really making and selling the product in the way that the Adopter agreement is designed and intended. As long as you aren't making it to be sold to customers as a business, it's not really a commercial activity and it would be totally out of practical reach of their lawyers pursuit. Hell, if you made your own PCBs and soldered the components, they still can't really bother to pursue each of you and waste their time. Nor would any court stand to allow them to collect $5,000 fee for a one-off made item made by you for yourself. They may allow them to collect the per unit royalty of 15 cents but not the adopter fee because it would be deemed in any court especially in the Federal District Court of California and the U.S. State court of Appeal of the Ninth Circuit would not approve any appeal by them. Why? The purpose of patent, trademarks, and copyrights is not designed to protect them from exclusive protection from a non-commercial act. They would fall flat on their face to support a real or reasonable level of damage they would have received from each end user who makes a F18A MK2 for themselves. Courts don't support excessive claims of damage and each of you would have to be sued as independent cases. They really can't class action it. It would fail in hearing because each of you are independent persons with no commercial link between each other per each of your own act.

 

The purpose of the Adopter agreement would be about commercial activity. If for example, you took the design of the PEB's backplane back in 1985 (while the original patents were not expired), TI couldn't sue you nor would you be liable to pay royalty UNTIL you sell it. You would only be liable to pay royalty if you sold it until the patents expires. Patents and intellectual property rights are for exclusive rights to commercialize and monetize from the protected works.

 

As long as you aren't selling or distributing, you fall outside such requirements.

 

At that point, the only party that could be held potentially liable would be PCBWay (or similar services) in which case, you can still make it yourself by setting up your own PCB production setup even if PCBWay decide to not do the PCB assembly/manf. to legally protect themselves. The only think you have to be really careful with in PCB manufacturing is the solutions used to etch the PCB. Beyond that, UV exposure from UV LEDs (in UV-A spectrum) would be minute. Once you etch the PCB, you go through the solder mask cycle and then the silkscreen using solutions that reacts to UV. Of course, like with any chemicals, follow the SDS (Safety Data Sheet) provided with the chemicals. ALWAYS do this in a manner that is away from children.

 

The instructions and process of how to do this (make PCBs) can be explained in detail later.

 

This is an interesting idea. He can have his own legal disclaimers in place for covering his ass.

[Wildstar]

I can get the PCB manufacturing process to process PCB blanks (unpopulated) with minimal work on my part. Just completely assembling the UV Exposure box and then the rest is the required chemicals. That alone will still keep me exempt from Adopter agreement !!!!

 

On the 24-inch x 1-meter surface area, I can UV expose for etching, solder masking and silk screen 288 of these F18A. Would have to cut them out using the jeweler's saw from 4x6 "sheets"that would be laid over the 24x36" aperture of the UV box.

Once I put the components on with the FPGA "core" then I would be in the situation of HDMI Adopter license because it isn't "end user product" state until it is generating HDMI output. That is when the FPGA is loaded with the F18A MK2 soft-core binary such as being loaded on to the flash rom which the FPGA then loads upon power up.

 

Until then, it is not an HDMI end user product. It is considered an end-user product once the end user only has to flip on the power switch and it automatically displays with HDMI video. or sending audio over HDMI per HDMI specifications.

 

The HDMI Adopter license doesn't apply to end-user!

 

It would be a lot more work on my part to source the chips/components and then solder them. They are really freaky small and time consuming to hand solder. I would have to pick up a PCB toaster oven for that purpose and lead-free solder paste. I would never want to hand solder those super tiny SMDs parts.

 

The biggest problem I would have to face is discarding chemicals. Last thing I want to do is become an EPA superfund site.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Wildstar

[+FarmerPotato]

This has gotten really off topic.

[Wildstar]

This has gotten really off topic.

 

Well true. Nothing can be done officially with HDMI licensing or the HDMI licensing company on a weekend and probably not for the immediate week(s) ahead but brainstorming options we could possibly do is all we can do at the moment.

 

So it's brainstorming.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Wildstar

[digdugnate]

so for the time being- would it make more sense to fork off the HDMI piece of this and then keep this thread specifically on the physical development/release of the F18A mk2 hardware?

[+OLD CS1]

Considering the amount of relevant information, maybe a title change to indicate announcement and discussion instead of the laborious task of separating it all out. The information in the thread thus far seems quite related to the topic considering the leap in technology Matt is attempting, and I have pointed an attorney to this thread for review on the matter. Matt can chime in if he is concerned about the topic and discussion.

[Wildstar]

Considering the amount of relevant information, maybe a title change to indicate announcement and discussion instead of the laborious task of separating it all out. The information in the thread thus far seems quite related to the topic considering the leap in technology Matt is attempting, and I have pointed an attorney to this thread for review on the matter. Matt can chime in if he is concerned about the topic and discussion.

 

Very good. I love to hear feedback from the attorney. In the scenario that jjh76 brought up, it would be nearly impossible for HDMI Licensing Administrators, Inc. to pursue a lawsuit with hope for it to hold.

[Wildstar]

 

Very good. I love to hear feedback from the attorney. In the scenario that jjh76 brought up, it would be nearly impossible for HDMI Licensing Administrators, Inc. to pursue a lawsuit with hope for it to hold.

 

The next step with HDMI licensing would require proceeding to contacting all the HDMI founders and getting their approval. This will be a little more challenging and time consuming.

 

In the meantime, I'd suggest a F18A MK1-B where we come up with a way to send the VGA and audio across and then feed out the case. I would go with something similar to this:

https://global.kyocera.com/prdct/electro/product/pdf/6287_manual.pdf and send the VGA and audio down it. If or when we can go to HDMI, we can possibly make this work at some point.

 

I'll look into working on the HDMI Adopter Agreement process. We would still have to have the parts tested for compliance, anyway.

[Sinphaltimus]

Just skimming all this about HDMI licensing and a thought occurred to me. The makers of the Apollo Vampire Accelerator card for Amigas use an HDMI connector but the video signal they use is not HDMI. it is instead the Digital Video standard (DVi) which, from my understanding, allows them to completely avoid the quagmire of HDMI licensing. It does not adhere to an HDMI standard at all but works on most HDMI displays. So for instance, it doesn't pass data or audio. Just the digital video signal. A thought.....

[+OLD CS1]

 

Very good. I love to hear feedback from the attorney. In the scenario that jjh76 brought up, it would be nearly impossible for HDMI Licensing Administrators, Inc. to pursue a lawsuit with hope for it to hold.

 

I am hoping to have some useful information soon. I.P. law is a harsh mistress.

[Wildstar]

Just skimming all this about HDMI licensing and a thought occurred to me. The makers of the Apollo Vampire Accelerator card for Amigas use an HDMI connector but the video signal they use is not HDMI. it is instead the Digital Video standard (DVi) which, from my understanding, allows them to completely avoid the quagmire of HDMI licensing. It does not adhere to an HDMI standard at all but works on most HDMI displays. So for instance, it doesn't pass data or audio. Just the digital video signal. A thought.....

 

The quagmire of DVI and HDMI is more complicated because technically HDMI video signal is a slightly modified DVI. We are talking the digital side of DVI because the DVI connector actually supported sending analog VGA over the connector.

Apollo Vampire Accelerator card. They are probably just riding under the radar and HDMI LA doesn't generally pursue going after people unless it has been reported to them. In other words, if you want these products to be made available, don't be a dick by reporting any licensing non-compliance for such a product because if you report them, you are forcing their hand to take action which is their job to do. Most of these large companies are probably aware of it but unless someone reports it, they don't necessarily take action but if someone reports they have to do the dance act as part of their job.

 

HDMI and HDMI licensing administration isn't going to go bankrupt by not collecting money on these retro-computing products. There just isn't that big of a market.

 

Another factor is, Apollo is in Europe so legal matters becomes a little more complicated.

 

There are quite a few players out there just not worrying about HDMI licensing. Here is the basic message in the dialog I have had without outright promoting it..... what I have got is basically "stay under the radar". They can't outright say they aren't going to ever pursue action against hobbyists and wouldn't want to put themselves in a legal bind (which you can't blame as it is their job as the agent of the founders to protect their respective IP rights) but in practice, they pick and choose what they pursue. Part of it is don't get reported. They aren't really interested in shutting down small hobbyists. As said, you take a legal risk and while it is unlikely that they will go after people like Matthew, they can't say they won't go after a person. However, I have generally avoided placing names. In practice, they have to prioritized their effort and resources.

 

There have been products using HDMI in the hobbyist market for some time without ever a threat or harm to them.

 

If you knew anyone who got in a snafu, the best thing I can suggest ANY developer.... don't piss people off and keep a low profile. What I can suggest to our retrocomputing friends, don't be a dick. If you want these kinds of things available, don't be a douchebag. In other words, don't report your friends here who are trying to contribute to the community just because they didn't dot every i or cross every t. HDMI or any of these large IP intellectual property rights holders aren't going out of business because they didn't collect an outrageous annual $5000 fee from a handful of retro developers who are only making a net profit maybe $5 per unit.

 

In the 3-5 years of F18A MK1, Matthew only netprofited maybe $5K to $10K total for all the units. If he had to pay an annual fee of $5K per year to use VGA, he wouldn't have been able to do this.

 

In short, don't be a douchebag that throws your retro-computing friends under the bus.

 

Add to it, HDMI Licensing Administrators, Inc. would be more annoyed pursuing a case with someone like Matthew or others when they can be spending their time and resources going after those illegal knock off DVD players that are being sold in the tens of thousands of units a quarter without paying any licensing fee. It's a waste of their lawyers times. They have to take some kind of legal step so they can tell their superiors that they weren't just ignoring complaints. They have to show due diligence effort on their part.

[Wildstar]

 

I am hoping to have some useful information soon. I.P. law is a harsh mistress.

 

Indeed. I think the risk is low. As long as we don't throw our retro-computing developer friends under the bus, they are unlikely to pursue any action. HDMI don't actively hunt for retrocomputer hobbyists. I would have to say, the only case(s) they had ever pursued was because some douchebag reported them for not being an HDMI Adopter and then they had to take action. It isn't a choice for the agents to just ignore a reported violation. They have to do the 'dance'.

 

What I elaborated on on jjh76's idea, could possibly work to get pass the HDMI licensing requirement and would be incredibly difficult for them to ursue any action.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Wildstar