HDMI licensing

[metrologist]

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.

If you don't include adapter in the package, I guess it should be okay.

Why 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.

[ebastler]

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.

No, 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 a smaller license fee ($0.05) than if you merely use the functionality ($0.15).

[mikeselectricstuff]

No, 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 a smaller license fee ($0.05) than if you merely use the functionality ($0.15).

But from my quick skimming of their site, I think if you use the logo, you have to have them certify it.

[ebastler]

No, 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 a smaller license fee ($0.05) than if you merely use the functionality ($0.15).

But from my quick skimming of their site, I think if you use the logo, you have to have them certify it.

Right, that's what wraper's quote says as well:

If the HDMI logo is used on the product and promotional material, the per-unit fee drops from US$0.15 to US$0.05. Use of HDMI logo requires compliance testing.

[SiliconWizard]

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.

No, 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 a smaller license fee ($0.05) than if you merely use the functionality ($0.15).

I 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#Licensing

Out 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#R

That definitely suggests that development boards are also subject to licensing. We will think twice before devising dev boards with an HDMI output.
 

[tautech]

Then there's the option to name it something else:

[SiliconWizard]

Then there's the option to name it something else:

Yes, 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.

[mikeselectricstuff]

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?
 

[Jat]

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.org

Thanks,

[NiHaoMike]

Out 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#R

That definitely suggests that development boards are also subject to licensing. We will think twice before devising dev boards with an HDMI output.
 

The 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.

[ebastler]

Out 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#R

That definitely suggests that development boards are also subject to licensing.
 

Sure. Why would "dev boards" be exempt, when they are products offered for sale to third parties?

[SiliconWizard]

Out 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#R

That definitely suggests that development boards are also subject to licensing.
 

Sure. Why would "dev boards" be exempt, when they are products offered for sale to third parties?

Just 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/#introduction
Generally 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:

BeagleBone Black is not a complete product. It is intended solely for use for preliminary
feasibility  evaluation  in  laboratory/development  environments  by  technically  qualified
electronics experts who are familiar with the dangers and application risks associated with
handling  electrical  mechanical  components,  systems  and  subsystems.  It  should  not  be
used as all or part of a finished end product.

So 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. 

[ebastler]

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.

[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.

[mikeselectricstuff]

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.

You 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.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I'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.

Citation needed

[BrianHG]

I'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.

Citation needed

Close, 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.

[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.

You 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.

Correct 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 from https://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.

[Wan Huang Luo]

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

Felkin brand from Aliexpress. I love it so much it's giving me the tingles. Definitely going in the One Hung Low Top Ten.

[NiHaoMike]

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.

Only applies when making a device with HDMI input. HDCP is only required on a HDMI output if the application requires it.

[wraper]

I'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.

Citation needed

How about quote you likely already have read?

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 television manufacturer would pay the royalty on the final product. If the cable is sold directly to consumers, then the cable would be subject to a royalty.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I'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.

Citation needed

How about quote you likely already have read?

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 television manufacturer would pay the royalty on the final product. If the cable is sold directly to consumers, then the cable would be subject to a royalty.

That'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.

[David_elec]

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

[Yansi]

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.

Easy to buy a truckload of these chips from China 

[viperidae]

 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?