Talk:DisplayPort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Royalty rate controversy[edit]

VESA.org and Displayport.org say the DisplayPort specs are royalty free: http://www.displayport.org/faq/

It is clear that VESA does not provide any patent license with the use of the DisplayPort spec. Page 9 of the DisplayPort specification, which is linked in the section above, states that patent claims do exist against DisplayPort. This version of the DisplayPort spec, dated January, 2008, states that the holders of these patents, including AMD and Intel, are willing to license these patents on RAND terms: "VESA draws attention to the fact that it is claimed that compliance with this specification may involve the use of a patent or other intellectual property right (collectively, “IPR”). VESA takes no position concerning the evidence, validity, and scope of this IPR. The following holders of this IPR have assured VESA that they are willing to license the IPR on RAND terms." (A list of patent holders follows).

However there is a 3rd-party that appears to be claiming that DisplayPort implementations infringe on several patents. MPEGLA offers licensing to the patents at a rate of $0.20 per unit: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/DisplayPort/Pages/FAQ.aspx

The list of claimed patents as of March 5, 2015 is:


The article should be refined to distinguish between VESA (zero-royalties) vs a non-VESA member's claims. The claims by MPEGLA are notable and should appear in the article, but it may be more appropriate to include them in a "controversy" section rather than in the 1st paragraph given that the authority on Displayport (DisplayPort.org) says the technology is royalty free. I attempted to correct this in the article but my edits were reverted. 67.170.106.182 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps further clarification should be in its own section and not necessarily mentioned in the lead section. However, your edit doesn't appear to have addressed the controversy or retain the Business Wire reference, so I can understand why it was reverted. I'm curious to hear what GrandDrake has to say. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The news from the MPEG LA is more recent than the royalty free statements that were made by VESA. So far VESA has not said anything about the MPEG LA license. I have moved the royalty information from the lead section to the cost section. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you will also agree, that currently there is no Licensee for the proposed license by MPEG LA for DisplayPort products. Your "Cost" Segment "DisplayPort has a royalty rate of $0.20 per unit from patents licensed by the MPEG LA.[44] The royalty applies to DisplayPort products that are manufactured or sold in countries that are covered by one or more of the patents in the MPEG LA license.[44] The MPEG LA license includes DisplayPort patents from Hitachi Maxell, Philips, Silicon Image, and Sony." is actually only repeating the claims made by MPEG LA and therefore WP:POV. Your "interest" in HDMI seem to reflect that. 85.179.136.197 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

VESA has not yet said anything about the MPEG LA license and the MPEG LA has a history of making patents pools. It is no surprise that some people dislike the MPEG LA announcement but it is verifiable information. As for the veiled statement made about me I prefer verifiable information and that can also be seen on the MPEG LA talk page. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The MPEG LA has also a history of making patent claims and then issuing them royalty free. There are no costs associated(except for member fees and the like), as of now. "DisplayPort has no royalty rate", as of now. You are clearly wrong and you should take it out immediately or maybe open up a new segment called royalty claims, or the like. The fact that your only source is a PM by a firm holding a good amount of patents related to multimedia is not sufficient at all. You present only one side. They announced the "availability" for that specific license. So far no one hast taken that "opportunity" (in public at least). You don't hear the other side and make assumptions.78.52.200.50 (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The MPEG LA has never released a license with a royalty rate and than later on made that license free. You are probably thinking of VP8 in which the MPEG LA made a deal with Google before they made a license. So far VESA has not said anything about the MPEG LA license so at the moment there is no other side. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You still have not changed it. This is plain ridiculous. There are no costs associated with DisplayPort as of now. And this is not something you can dispute. MPEG LA claims you need a license to produce DP products, that's all. After a month of no news whatsoever there is still no "other side" or any news outlet that would have covered it, except for one press release that went completely unnoticed, except for some sites that most likely automatically published said release after it landed in their system. Again, you could open up a new segment called something like Licensing Controversy, but as it stands the Segment "Cost" under Specifications is a misrepresentation of the reality."DisplayPort has a royalty rate of $0.20 per unit from patents licensed by the MPEG LA". That is untrue. It has no royalty rate. It may have a royalty rate in the future, or it may stay royalty free. But that's not for you to judge.92.225.18.195 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the authority on if there is a license required is VESA and their displayport.org site. They are a standards body. There is no license required. This article is shamefully remaining POV even after it has been pointed out and corrections reverted. As to GrandDrake's claim that the MPEG-LA claims are more recent, they are also clearly partisan and they can't refute a standards body. Also, they're not more recent; the FAQ at DisplayPort.org is up to date; is there some objective reason to believe it is not up-to-date? Simply reload the page and check, as of right now today it says it is royalty free. Stating otherwise without equivocation is, in simple terms, a "lie." 76.105.216.34 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Many standard bodies don't deal with patent licensing and for example that is true for H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and High Efficiency Video Coding. As for the DisplayPort website it doesn't say anything about the MPEG LA license. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There still is no license (fee) associated with DisplayPort. How many times do I have to tell you. There is no license. Both parties would have to agree and sign a license deal before you can claim there are associated costs. You can't refute that but still won't back down. This is clearly not NPOV and you should know better. You didn't even consider my compromise proposal, instead you are trying to distract. You are presenting one POV. To this very day there have been no further news reports (there weren't any to begin with), no additional information or statements. All we have is a wildly unreported (and that is a clear understatement) press release and a website entry claiming not even one licensee.78.52.224.13 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there are licensees listed at the MPEG LA website. It is clear that the amount of licensors signing up under the agreement has also expanded since the press release back in March. It is interesting to note, however, that the DisplayPort FAQ page now specifically mentions:

MPEG LA is making claims that DisplayPort implementation requires a license and a royalty payment. It is important to note that these are only CLAIMS. Whether these CLAIMS are relevant will likely be decided in a US court.

That statement was added to the FAQ section sometime after September 7, 2015. The wording in this article should be changed to reflect this. Mention of the claimed royalty should be brief, so that paragraph should be shortened to two sentences at most about this, until more coverage appears in reliable sources. As of today, it still isn't being reported on, other than that business wire PR. Per WP:DUE, the claim itself appears to be in the minority at the moment and should not overtake the Cost section like it is presently. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Notice that the only licensees are subsidiaries of companies that hold one or more of the patents in question aka nonpaid licensees 2601:5CB:4400:7800:2E0:81FF:FEB5:AD1E (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that despite what we notice, which is original research that's not permitted, the notice on the main DisplayPort FAQ page is enough to question the claimed royalty, and this needs to be inserted into the article. We also need to give the claim less prominence in the article until a clear analysis is given in a reliable source. So far, we don't have that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The VESA website states that the organization will not be involved in disputes regarding DisplayPort patents. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Another editor expressed a desire to keep this thread unarchived. Adding this notice should retain it for at least another year. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DisplayPort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

DisplayPort dead?[edit]

This article sounds like an advertisement spiel for an up-and-coming, hip new technology. However, it cites an article from 2012 talking about predicted market share for 2014... which was a while ago.

Did DisplayPort get killed so hard by HDMI that no one bothered to update this article? I can only speculate, so I ask any experts who still care about this article to please revisit it. Thanks. 71.231.58.8 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure DisplayPort not killed, but what is this "Micro DisplayPort" this article mention, never heard about, are we talking about Type-C connector ? --PaKo (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I make an update because I investigate this point and see VESA moved to USB Type-C integration, --PaKo (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to open Google.com and type "DisplayPort market share", then use your credit card to purchase one of these extensive market reports. I do not have $5000 to spend for a 3-digit number, when anyone can see that DisplayPort and Thunderbolt are found on just about every desktop graphics card and integrated motherboard.
Notebooks (except Apple MacBooks) still mostly use DVI-I, but it will be superseded by USB Type-C with DisplayPort alternate mode in just a few years.--Dmitry (talkcontibs) 16:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Displayport is quite common on laptops too. One selling point is of course the smaller size of the connector so you can have several DP outs in a single GPU. Displayport has also always been one step ahead of HDMI. When HDMI 2.0 finally added UHD @ 60Hz, Displayport has support for UHD @ 120Hz & 8k. That USB type C angle is pretty nice too. Reversible connector that can take care of USB *and* display duties. Right now you need USB Type C -> Displayport adapter thought. I don't agree DVI-I is common at all in notebooks, that's a huge obsolete connector. Usually you get at least HDMI, sometimes DP and VGA can't be killed.
Barleyman74 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
DisplayPort is firmly entrenched now. On the display side it's still kinda a "high-end" feature though, so you'll mostly find it on rather expensive monitors. With the UHD revolution rolling, we can expact to see even more adoption. DisplayPort is backed by huge companies like AMD, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lenovo, LG, nVidia, Samsung, Texas Instruments. It's definitely here to stay. It also plays a huge role in Thunderbolt, which basically combines DisplayPort and PCI-Express into a single interface. 84.159.215.63 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Open standard[edit]

The article says "DisplayPort has several advantages over VGA, DVI, and FPD-Link: *Open standard available to all VESA members" This sounds like a contradiction in terms. If it's an open standard, anyone should be able to see how it's documented and implement it, without having to join a trade association for the privilege of the standard being "available" to them. Could someone more knowledgeable please clarify? Wyddgrug (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DisplayPort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DisplayPort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)