what is the cost of HDMI?


ible

professional vim user
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,590
Location
Seattle, WA
I saw on Wikipedia that HDMI manufacturers have to pay a $10k annual fee (source), in addition to some small fee per device.  I'm not sure if I understand this correctly -- is this fee something that ED has to pay as a manufacturer of the Pyra, since it has an HDMI port on it?  Or who would pay that fee?  (TI perhaps??)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HDMI is built into the SoC, my guess it's already a part of the cost of the SoC itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HDMI is built into the SoC, my guess it's already a part of the cost of the SoC itself.

I doubt that either TI or a reseller would want to play accountant for a customer. ED as the manufacturer surely has to take care of that, and I guess he will take the "cheaper" route and use the smale scale version with just $5000/anno and $1/unit.
Putting my smartass glasses on for a moment: this already came up "ages ago" when it was still in flux which video output the Pyra will have. I think I remember a not insignificant part of the community leaning towards Displayport. But ED decided pro HDMI as it was more compatible with the epectation about what people will probably have in their homes more (and probably the cheaper implementation costs).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HDMI is built into the SoC, my guess it's already a part of the cost of the SoC itself.

According to the HDMI cartel association themselves, this is not the case.  To fully comply with their requirements, the manufacturer must:

  • Be an "adopter" ($10k/yr)
  • Pay a 5 cent per-device-sold fee
  • Submit the device for testing and certification (~$8k based on various google results)
Luckily, reading between the lines, none of this appears to be strictly necessary from a legal standpoint.  These requirements seem to be for trademark licensing and must be met for you to use the HDMI logo on your device and/or packaging. Logically, if you've already bought a licensed part from a manufacturer, all the physical/patent licensing is sorted.  As long as you're not using the HDMI logo on your packaging, website, product, or promotional material, I don't think they can go after you.

But I'm not a lawyer, so my common-sense interpretation of this could be bollocks.

I doubt that either TI or a reseller would want to play accountant for a customer. ED as the manufacturer surely has to take care of that, and I guess he will take the "cheaper" route and use the smale scale version with just $5000/anno and $1/unit.

The chip maker and the connector maker no doubt have paid the patent licensing fees - they couldn't sell the parts if they hadn't.  You should be covered from a patent perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HDMI is built into the SoC, my guess it's already a part of the cost of the SoC itself.

According to the HDMI cartel association themselves, this is not the case.  To fully comply with their requirements, the manufacturer must:

  • Be an "adopter" ($10k/yr)
  • Pay a 5 cent per-device-sold fee
  • Submit the device for testing and certification (~$8k based on various google results)
Luckily, reading between the lines, none of this appears to be strictly necessary from a legal standpoint.  These requirements seem to be for trademark licensing and must be met for you to use the HDMI logo on your device and/or packaging. Logically, if you've already bought a licensed part from a manufacturer, all the physical/patent licensing is sorted.  As long as you're not using the HDMI logo on your packaging, website, product, or promotional material, I don't think they can go after you.

But I'm not a lawyer, so my common-sense interpretation of this could be bollocks.

I doubt that either TI or a reseller would want to play accountant for a customer. ED as the manufacturer surely has to take care of that, and I guess he will take the "cheaper" route and use the smale scale version with just $5000/anno and $1/unit.

The chip maker and the connector maker no doubt have paid the patent licensing fees - they couldn't sell the parts if they hadn't.  You should be covered from a patent perspective.
Well that makes it easy.  On the Pyra description simply say "it has a video out port that is capable of directly supporting modern HDMI cables"

Then you are simply saying the Pyra has a video out port, and what works with that video out port, no way they could say that is utilizing their trademark
 
Then you are simply saying the Pyra has a video out port, and what works with that video out port, no way they could say that is utilizing their trademark

Maybe?  That's what it sounds like to me, but again, I'm not a lawyer.

Even if that's legally accurate, there's nothing stopping them from suing you anyway.  I mean they'd lose eventually, but it would take forever and cost a fortune just to see the suit through to the end.  If they want their blood money badly enough, they could sue you into bankruptcy just to set an example.  If it were me, I would definitely talk to an actual lawyer to figure out the real options and risks.
 
If it were me, I'd just pay the $2-$4 per unit and not worry about whether we can or can't say it is HDMI.
 
If it were me, I'd just pay the $2-$4 per unit and not worry about whether we can or can't say it is HDMI.

Exactly.  There are a few pieces where the project will likely be paying licensing fees for standards.  SDXC, HDMI, USB, WiFi, 4G, SATA are all 'standards' which, as far as I know, are supported by standards organizations - many/most/all? of which are nonprofit.  The licensing fees may seem steep for an individual, but are typically small from a device production perspective.  The organizations use these fees to ensure compliance and compatibility.  Distinctly not evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association is the nonprofit standards organization for SDXC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VESA is the nonprofit standards organization for HDMI
http://www.usb.org/about is the nonprofit standards organization for USB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Alliance is the nonprofit standards organization for WiFi
4G - no idea who defines this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA_International_Organization is the nonprofit standards organization for SATA

 
 
It should be the same as with USB: If you want to use the logo, you need to pay the fee. Which is the reason the Pandora never had an official USB Logo anywhere :)

That's also the reason the test is necessary when you want to use the logo: The commitee confirms with that and ensures that every device using the logo is 100% compatible with that standard (Pandora would've failed here anyways with the USB Port).

If you don't want to use the logo, you can simply forget about that.

And they can't sue me to death - in Germany, that's not possible.
 
[COLOR= rgb(37, 37, 37)]HDMI manufacturers pay an annual fee of [/COLOR]US$[COLOR= rgb(37, 37, 37)]10,000 plus a royalty rate of $0.15 per unit, reduced to $0.05 if the HDMI logo is used, and further reduced to $0.04 if HDCP is also implemented.[/COLOR][COLOR= rgb(37, 37, 37)] An alternative fee for HDMI manufacturers making fewer than 10,000 units per year is an annual fee of $5,000 with a royalty rate of $1 per unit.[/COLOR]
It would appear from this wording that if you don't use the logo, you need to pay more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HDMI Manufactures sounds more like these companys which make the connector itself, no?
 
The chip maker and the connector maker no doubt have paid the patent licensing fees - they couldn't sell the parts if they hadn't.  You should be covered from a patent perspective.

Why ? Both of them aren't directly involved in bringing a HDMI capable product on the market. Especially the fact that you can choose between two options (Hi and Low- volume productiuon) leaves only one possibility: the company that wants to sell something to an end customer is responsible for that
 
As long as the HDMI port is only able to output video signals, just call it DVI via HDMI connector. That seems to be what everyone else is doing, like with the original BeagleBoard ("DVI-D using an HDMI to DVI-D adapter").
 
The chip maker and the connector maker no doubt have paid the patent licensing fees - they couldn't sell the parts if they hadn't.  You should be covered from a patent perspective.

Why ? Both of them aren't directly involved in bringing a HDMI capable product on the market. Especially the fact that you can choose between two options (Hi and Low- volume productiuon) leaves only one possibility: the company that wants to sell something to an end customer is responsible for that
Here is how I understand things:

Both the connector manufacturer and chip manufacturer are creating and selling a product that contains patented components.  They would absolutely have to pay a licensing fee to the patent holder in order to sell them - whether they're selling them to another manufacturer or to an end user is irrelevant.  Licensing fees only have to be paid by the initial manufacturer, not by every company who adds the component to their product.

For example, a desktop computer likely has thousands of patented components.  Does a desktop manufacturer like Falcon Northwest have to pay license fees on every single one of them?  No, not directly.  All of those components were either licensed by the initial manufacturer or were manufactured by the holder of the patent.  The HDMI patent licensing fees were paid by the company that made the connector.  The connector was purchased by the company that made the graphics card, and the card was then sold to Falcon, who sells the whole shebang to an end user.  Patent fees aren't incurred every time a component changes hands.  As long as the initial component is properly licensed, the end product is kosher.
 
the next line (on Wikipedia) reads:
 

The royalty only applies to final products [[and does not apply to products that are included in, or with, a licensed HDMI product that is already subject to the royalty]].
according to Wikipedia then, it's not the chip manufacturers who are responsible, but then end product people...

the part i put in double brackets is for things like HDMI cables which are bundled with an HDMI TV -- you don't need to pay the royalty on the HDMI cable, if you have paid the royalty on the TV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said originally, and as ED confirmed, those are the trademark licensing costs.  Paying those fees and having your device certified are only necessary if you want to use the HDMI logo on your device, packaging, or promotional materials.  If you don't use their trademarked images, you don't need to license the trademark.  This is an entirely separate issue from patent licensing.  Here's some more info on the distinction between the two.
 
Then it would be strange to say the royalty fee drops to 5 cents per unit if you use the HDMI logo, and say that it's 15 cents otherwise.  But I'm no lawyer...
 
HDMI is a proprietary format. In order to use it you need to pay a licensing fee.  Period.  There is no (legal) way to use HDMI without paying royalties.  This fee is $10'000 every year you are selling the product plus 15 cents per unit sold.
You can use the DVI over HDMI, but that's just the connector, it is using the DVI format so no need to pay HDMI fees.
If you "reasonably" include the logo then the licensing fee drops from 15 cents to 5 cents.
If you can't afford $10'000 there's a lower cost $5000 per year plus $1 per unit sold.
It's not a trademark license, it's patent, like MP3 or GIF.
 
I seem to remember that DisplayPort is royalty free, is this correct?

If so then I know it might be inappropriately late in the development phase, but how hard would it be to switch to a DisplayPort (mini or fullsize) connector? I'm not very familiar with the OMAP5, but if it helps I did find that the TI IGEPv5 board has a DisplayPort output.
 
Back
Top