Re:HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
by account42 on Thursday August 29, 2024 @05:09AM
(#41388822)
Actually these monopolies are enforced by the state via IP laws. Without IP laws any upstart could reverse engineer the protocols and provide an implementation with less limitations. But of course free market enthusiasts like to ignore that part and only rant against the government when it protects consumers from companies.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
by roenxi on Thursday August 29, 2024 @05:52AM
(#41389052)
There are a huge number of free market types who are against IP laws and they're a big part of computing culture. Names like the FSF [0] spring to mind. A market can't expose a fraction of its potential if people are banned from competing because someone else got there first. The only reason the software world did so well was because the FSF managed that inspired hack of the copyright system known as the GPL that freed up the market, in fact.
Re:HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
by rini17 on Thursday August 29, 2024 @05:32AM
(#41388944)
Yes, if there were no IP anyone could cheaply make a single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASIC to provide the alternative 4K-capable video hardware implementation. /s
Re:HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
by miki123211 on Thursday August 29, 2024 @07:48AM
(#41389817)
Anyone? No, probably not. Some enterprising company in Shenzhen, who would sell the thing for $.25 a piece due to fierce competition driving prices down to cost of materials? Now that's more likely.
Re:HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
by ozfive on Thursday August 29, 2024 @06:21AM
(#41389223)
Single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASICs aren't really required to achieve this. Although there is higher latency this can and has been done on FPGAs at a company I worked for which designed and built custom AVOD systems for private jets and helicopters.