[TechSpot] HDMI Org says Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI cables are illegal

[SabreWulf69]

Source - TechSpot



"If you've been meaning to pick up a Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI cable, you may want to act quick and get 'em while they're hot. According to HDMI Org, the committee that oversees the HDMI specification, such wires are illegal and could disappear from stores. Speaking with TechRadar, the group claims that any cable with a male Mini DisplayPort connector on one side and a male HDMI connector on the opposite side is unlicensed and shouldn't be on your local Best Buy's shelves.

Backing its claims, the organization underscored a few lines from the HDMI specification. One line specifies an HDMI cable as having only HDMI connectors -- anything else is unpermitted. If that's not convincing enough, the group also said that all HDMI products undergo compliance testing as defined by the Compliance Testing Specification. Since mDP-to-HDMI cables aren't mentioned in the HDMI specification, there are no tests associated with the product, so they can't be approved.

Interestingly, cables with a male mDP connector alongside a female HDMI receptacle are fine because a licensed HDMI cable can be attached. Apple is currently one of the largest proponents of mDP and happens to sell one of the unapproved cables online. It's unclear how HDMI Org will address the situation, but it does acknowledge that there is a market for an mDP-to-HDMI cable instead of a dongle -- they just want to do it by the book. It's worth noting that MonoPrice has already discontinued its mDP-to-HDMI offerings."

[Jamesrt2004]

Lol. This is ridiculous, hdmi can have fun and fight apple

[K404]

A bit petty

JEDEC hasn't approved DDR3-2166 has it, but it still exists

[mAJORD]

hahahahahahaha

that's all I have to say about this one

[s1nykuL]

"Backing its claims, the organization underscored a few lines from the HDMI specification. One line specifies an HDMI cable as having only HDMI connectors..."

Fair enough, call it a DisplayPort cable or call it Fred. Call it anything but a HDMI cable. Simple!

[PatRaceTin]

funny

[Serra]

This actually makes sense for a few reasons.

I do fully support the idea that all cables should go through rigorous testing. One practical issue that probably exists is that I doubt there are even any tools out there to actually perform testing with... they would be HDMI-HDMI or DP-DP units.

But a second, much less savory reason I don't really want to get behind is that HDMI was designed with HDCP in mind, and this is another chance to ensure HDCP is enforced. You would think it's pretty much a moot point by now since everything sold is HDCP compliant, but it is the job of the HDMI people to keep it that way. I don't think they'll ever state this as the reason for them to keep out cables like this, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they discussed it in the back...

[Sparky]

Interestingly, cables with a male mDP connector alongside a female HDMI receptacle are fine because a licensed HDMI cable can be attached.

This just goes to show how stupid this is. Oh, you cannot make a mDP to HDMI cable with male plugs on both sides! But you can have a female HDMI plug instead.

In the end, what difference does it make. Really. You're still going mDP to HDMI.

[spicypixel]

Guess it's time for Apple and others to promote Displayport and hope HDMI dies a horrible death.

[CrazyNutz]

DVI-D to HDMI cables and adapters have been around from the start, I never seen anything about these items being pulled from shelves. This is comical

[True Brit]

A bit petty

JEDEC hasn't approved DDR3-2166 has it, but it still exists

oooh yes Sir, me gotem right here, luvly things they are me Sir - OCZ3G2133LV4GK

on topic - this is mad, also Apple will do what they always do, throw some cash at it, or someones sons education, and walla, standard approved,

on a side note did wireless N ever get the ok? i think it might have passed me by

[nn_step]

I don't believe that they have any legal right what so ever to prevent the manufacture, distribution, nor sale of said items. The only thing they can do, is prevent the use of the HDMI trademark aka require a sticker over the word HDMI

[naokaji]

Rename cables to mDP Cable with integrated Adapter

Point and laugh at HDMI Org

???

Profit

[SKYMTL]

DVI-D to HDMI cables and adapters have been around from the start, I never seen anything about these items being pulled from shelves. This is comical

Because those are ADAPTERS and not CABLES. Back in the day, several companies like Hiper and Bestech had to pull DVI to HDMI cables off the market for this exact reason.

Adapters are still perfectly legal under these terms so this won't affect the PC industry all that much.

[sin0822]

oh man id like to be sued by them! hahaha

[cirthix]

This may be to prevent people from plugging such a cable into an hdmi source device and a mDP display.

[stangracin3]

all i see is a very long adapter....

[Sparky]

This may be to prevent people from plugging such a cable into an hdmi source device and a mDP display.

Except as noted above you can still "legally" get mDP male/HDMI female cables, then just use a HDMI male/male cable with that and still plug in a HDMI source to a mDP display. So this really is nothing but nonsense as it doesn't prevent anything.

[zalbard]

So, is this about royalties again?

This may be to prevent people from plugging such a cable into an hdmi source device and a mDP display.

This could be the reason. It just wouldn't work in this case, right?

[SamHughe]

Aww! I have two of those and a DVI-to-HDMI cable. I feel really badass right now!

Bad to the bone
Bad to the bone
B-B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-B-Bad
Bad to the bone

[zanzabar]

Aww! I have two of those and a DVI-to-HDMI cable. I feel really badass right now!

Bad to the bone
Bad to the bone
B-B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-B-Bad
Bad to the bone

those are legal they have the same pin out for single link just a different connector, DP ones are not

[lutjens]

Some people have too much time on their hands...quibbling over such minutae...completely absurd. Why they insist on wasting everyone's time with this is beyond me...

[blindbox]

on a side note did wireless N ever get the ok? i think it might have passed me by

I'll go off topic a bit and answer this question (I happen to love networking).

Yes, the standard has been finalized and released. It has been so for over a year now (I think, almost 2 years). The standard is pretty wide though, it has a few configurations, and although your wireless-n device might be wireless-n compliant, it might not be 300mbps compliant, and work only up to 125 mbps - which is still in the wireless-n spec however.

Gotta love the range improvement though, they're awesome. heck, my router works at 501 mW / 27 dB and covers every inch of the house.

[Stewie007]

I think that people here would think differently if it were their technology that someone else was selling without paying any licensing fees. If a product isn't licensed, then the said manufacturer pays no royalties to the company or organization that licenses the use of the technology.

Businesses will protect their interests, and it is not absurd for them to do so. It is up to the justice system to settle the disputes. If you owned patents and licensed a specific technology, you would become agitated were someone to use it in a way that you did not sanction. Its like allowing your son to drive your Mustang, and finding out he used it in a way that you did not approve. Are you saying that it would be ridiculous for you to have a grievance?

[lutjens]

I think that people here would think differently if it were their technology that someone else was selling without paying any licensing fees. If a product isn't licensed, then the said manufacturer pays no royalties to the company or organization that licenses the use of the technology.

Businesses will protect their interests, and it is not absurd for them to do so. It is up to the justice system to settle the disputes. If you owned patents and licensed a specific technology, you would become agitated were someone to use it in a way that you did not sanction. Its like allowing your son to drive your Mustang, and finding out he used it in a way that you did not approve. Are you saying that it would be ridiculous for you to have a grievance?

I have no issue with a patent holder defending their intellectual property. However, the part of this topic that seemed nonsensical to me was the non-issue with a female connector, while the male connector was condemned. While "compliance testing" or lack thereof seems to be the reason for the issue with the male connector-ended cable, I fail to see why such reasoning doesn't apply to the female version as well.