logoalt Hacker News

hedoralast Thursday at 1:01 AM3 repliesview on HN

Summarizing this thread:

- I paid for a device with a properly licensed hdmi port. It runs linux. So patent exhaustion applies, at least in the US. I can say ignore the patents to make my property work.

- I have no relationship to the HDMI people. (Never entered into a contract with them.)

- The links to the spec are here. (Trade secrets/nda no longer apply. This is the problem with using trade secrets to protect your stuff.)

- If I point a coding assistant (assume open weights/source) at this thread, and a copy of linux main, it can probably just fix the damn driver.

- I could probably publish my patch with a big fat “only for use with licensed hdmi hardware, not for resale” disclaimer on it.

At that point, what law would I have broken?


Replies

jokoonlast Thursday at 1:22 AM

The problem is that software distributors might break laws if the said drivers lands on unlicensed hdmi hardware, so they should be liable to check if the hardware is properly licensed, which might generate headaches.

Or maybe lawyers cannot anticipate everything that happens in court, so it just feels better to do things properly and not try to circumvent laws, especially when you're valve. It's better to not take risks.

show 3 replies
mft_last Thursday at 1:20 AM

Would it be feasible for a driver patch to be shared via e.g. an anonymous torrent, with a checksum (to certify authenticity) held somewhere more reliable, like GitHub?

show 2 replies
aoeusnth1last Thursday at 1:13 AM

Maybe nothing, but can you afford to prove that in court?

show 2 replies