Latest 30 Comments

Quoting: melkemindI'm afraid it might get even worse when the steam machine comes out and Microsoft views it as a direct competitor to the Xbox.

Other devs might support Linux more, but we can't rule out the possibility Microsoft will try some anticompetitive tactics with Forza and their other games.

At first I aslo thought microslop did some shenanigans in rendering code to make the game run worse on Linux, but I don't think it is the case. Most likely fh6 devs did some optimizations, that are just hard to reverse engineer and translate.

If microslop really wanted to prevent their games from running on Linux, they would just block it with some anticheat-like measure or straightly blocking it like genshin impact devs did.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

That is really cool.😀

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: Kapellini

the continued flood of AI reports has basically made the security list almost entirely unmanageable

AI tools are great... Feel free to use them...

🤔

Might want to read the rest too:

If you actually want to add value, read the documentation, create a patch too, and add some real value on *top* of what the AI did. Don't be the drive-by "send a random report with no real understanding" kind of person. Ok?

What he's asking for would restore sanity to the security list, which would take care of the contradiction you're pointing out. Although I'm pretty sure most of these people will just prompt their AI/LLM to produce a patch and send that to the list, without understanding the problem or the code. Maybe it'll at least reduce the amount of reports to a reasonable level.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: Corben

AI tools are great, [...] but use them in a way that is productive and makes for a better experience.
[...]
If you actually want to add value, [...] add some real value on *top* of what the AI did. Don't be the drive-by "send a random report with no real understanding" kind of person. Ok?

Some imho very true and well said statements. Though I think it's still not AI, just very sophisticated software that's really really good at guessing words and giving a good impression of being smart. AI is just the buzz word for LLMs.
Nonetheless, these tools can be really helpful. Like with any other tools, you need to learn how to use them. They can code, if it's good code, you need to understand what it produced. Back then we needed to learn how to google, which search words gave the answers we were looking for. This hasn't changed, today we need to learn how to prompt. Fooling an LLM is easy and even funny the first time. It can give you the right answer though too, if you know how to ask it properly. And reading code is easier and faster than writing code by hand. So using these tools can be helpful, if done properly. They won't replace creatitvity or create ideas. At best they can reproduce or mix something existing differently together. It can be good and maybe even a starting point, yet it will always need real humans to decide if it's useful and good.

What's apparently happening now is... hey I (= my AI that I prompted) found something! Look at me, give me credits! Getting attenting for the low hanging fruits. It always works in the very beginning, and will be consolidated over time. New technology creates new challenges, eventually the benefits will emerge out of this.

A thought that came up reading about the sheer amount of reports incoming reports was... maybe they should use LLMs to sort out the duplicates 😆

The sorting problem should be solvable with boring old testing suites, with CVE-access.
The problem is keeping from using this to clog up maintainer mailboxes.
Linus's solution to that is to immediately publish AI reports.
My solution is to immediately publish all duplicate reports, because they all suffer from the same fundamental issue.
Also appealing to AI developers to create variation in hunting tactics, but I'm not enough of an AI-developer to know the achievability of such a request.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Yeah, although easily solvable with automation(automatically publish every duplicate and make an auto duplicate detector), mailing lists are in their nature pretty unautomated places.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

I'm not sure why you would want to do this, but you can run a Linux Wayland Compositor inside Minecraft to get various external windows inside the game.

Of course, I doubt the answer to this question always is: "Because I can!"

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

AI tools are great, [...] but use them in a way that is productive and makes for a better experience.
[...]
If you actually want to add value, [...] add some real value on *top* of what the AI did. Don't be the drive-by "send a random report with no real understanding" kind of person. Ok?

Some imho very true and well said statements. Though I think it's still not AI, just very sophisticated software that's really really good at guessing words and giving a good impression of being smart. AI is just the buzz word for LLMs.
Nonetheless, these tools can be really helpful. Like with any other tools, you need to learn how to use them. They can code, if it's good code, you need to understand what it produced. Back then we needed to learn how to google, which search words gave the answers we were looking for. This hasn't changed, today we need to learn how to prompt. Fooling an LLM is easy and even funny the first time. It can give you the right answer though too, if you know how to ask it properly. And reading code is easier and faster than writing code by hand. So using these tools can be helpful, if done properly. They won't replace creatitvity or create ideas. At best they can reproduce or mix something existing differently together. It can be good and maybe even a starting point, yet it will always need real humans to decide if it's useful and good.

What's apparently happening now is... hey I (= my AI that I prompted) found something! Look at me, give me credits! Getting attenting for the low hanging fruits. It always works in the very beginning, and will be consolidated over time. New technology creates new challenges, eventually the benefits will emerge out of this.

A thought that came up reading about the sheer amount of reports incoming reports was... maybe they should use LLMs to sort out the duplicates 😆

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Fro looks of it, from page in question - it works as reverse engineering and implementation of Nvidia anti lag. Which allows AMD and Intel to use anti lag in nvidia enabled game titles. THIS IS HILARIOUS.😆
Nvidia will not be happy about it and future evocations of this tech will break backward compatibility. I would bet my $ on it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

I'm afraid it might get even worse when the steam machine comes out and Microsoft views it as a direct competitor to the Xbox.

Other devs might support Linux more, but we can't rule out the possibility Microsoft will try some anticompetitive tactics with Forza and their other games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

This is gamechanger.
Now we need to figure out how to use it :D
I wonder if this tech is game specific or agnostic. And no, I did not use windows or gaming for more than 15 years, so no i have no idea.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

the continued flood of AI reports has basically made the security list almost entirely unmanageable

AI tools are great... Feel free to use them...

🤔

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Another W from the Heroic Games Launcher team

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

I tried it yesterday, but didnt get it to work on Steam Deck.

How is the full command to activate fsr4 for games?

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Can anyone try to run Legacy of Kain Defiance Remastered with this version?

In my case since 11.8 (and now 11.9 too), it's crashing on startup. Reverting to 11.7 works fine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

On the (GOG) deals page, if you select wishlist only, and there are no results, you get stuck with no way to turn that off, other than by changing the region. I assume that wasn't intentional / is a bug.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: DraconicroseI needed this 5 years ago :( rented the cheapest servers I could find just to play with one other person.

Setting up a local server with port forwarding was always an option, though. But when the connection itself isn't stable enough, or the PC isn't good enough, neither port forwarding or peer-to-peer can help.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Hmm... 🤔 Those touchpads could have OLED displays underneath, to show some eye expressions when things happen. 😆

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: Draconicrosekinda sad I don't need a controller now

You can still buy one, and throw it at stuff.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

I've been having such a smooth time on my desktop, including hosting multiplayer for 3 others, that I absolutely forgot this is not a native game!

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

I needed this 5 years ago :( rented the cheapest servers I could find just to play with one other person.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: The_Real_Bitterman

Quoting: Draconicrose

Quoting: The_Real_Bitterman

Quoting: rustynail

Quoting: The_Real_BittermanThere are people not using the official flatpak? Geez ...

It's actually news to me, I think last time I checked it still wasn't official, and it had a bunch of issues like shipping an old version of discord for months because the current one used a version of electron that broke something. And of course they had to use some weird hack to make an old version work with current servers.

Then it wasn't the official flat, yes. But it is official since a long time now. I bet there was even an article her on GoL abut it.

Yep, here: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2023/10/discord-for-linux-gets-flathub-verified/ 3 years ago

It's verified but it's not official. Here: https://github.com/flathub/com.discordapp.Discord/issues/343

Just because it's verified it doesn't mean that Discord is actually the ones developing/packaging it and, as a result, the flatpak has issues. There's a reason the flatpak isn't linked anywhere on the official discord website.

You clearly do not know how verifying work on flathub. You have to be the owner of the com.discord domain and add a link to the discord flathub page or at least the PR where you want it to be verified. So someone at discord has put up a link/token on their homepage to link to flathub. So yes it is developed by discord and therefore official. See: https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-users/verification (or an authorised official 3rd party)

Therefore, what ever you've checked is just plain wrong. Just looking at the maintainers of the github repo doe not tell you anything.

Also the only thing flunky with the flat is that it can not sniff on your running process to show all your servers what your playing or which music you're listening too.

Unless an application specificity uses the discord RPC to tell discord it is running. App -> RPC -> Discord then Discord will show, also the flatpak. What is not working is Discord -> /dev/proc *Sniff, Sniff*

Please follow the link provided to see that it's not wrong. The flatpak is indeed verified by Discord, but it is not developed by them. The link is for a discussion where people are talking about how this has tripped them up, including with Discord support. A big part of the problem IS because apps can verify without actually being the developer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

I love the whimsy of this all :D kinda sad I don't need a controller now

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

One of the better open world racers as of late.
However the sneaky monetization ruined a lot of it.
Blocking parts and half forcing ingame currency purchases was pretty scummy.
Just hide the fact earning the currency was slow and tedious.

Hopefully fans can revive the game and maybe we can see some limit breaking mods.
Hope the user made cars get archived somehow too.

Shame to just trash it like that.

Eh forget em maybe this will make room for an indie clone.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: spacemonkey

Quoting: EikeWhile I totally agree with the feeling, I'm not sure Valve has much to do with this particular fun?
Or did they have to enable this somehow?

What do you mean? Valve made the controller. All of this is because of their design.

Yes, they made a controller with a good, fine-controllable rumble. Sounds would normally not be the first thing this is designed for, but rather a side-effect.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: EikeWhile I totally agree with the feeling, I'm not sure Valve has much to do with this particular fun?
Or did they have to enable this somehow?

What do you mean? Valve made the controller. All of this is because of their design.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: octarine_dreamIs this made by the same people as Magic The Gathering Arena, or maybe the same engine? It looks and sounds almost identical!

One of the Devs here, I wish we made MTG Arena!

We are using Unity as our engine, which I believe is the same as Arena, but all of our code and rendering systems are custom due to the unique nature of making a deckbuilder with a triangular grid.

I will say the other main dev on the game (Jeremy) has a TON of experience playing MTG, and we both play lots of deckbuilders in our free time!

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

If its based on existing HDMI work it can break copyright and patents can still be wielded.
Trademark is weak, because its legal coverage much more limited and its punishments are much less bad.
For trademark the infringed party needs to proof the trademark infringement is misleading to consumers and you can't use it to get an existing product from the market, just its marketing.
Also dodging trademark can sometimes be as easy as not describing your product as "HDMI", but "HDMI compatible" or simply using the same shape as HDMI for your port.

There are no patents covering the parts that the driver is implementing, but pretending that there are I don't see the reason for your argument since that would still make open vs closed drivers a non issue for HDMI Forum since had it been covered by a patent then they would have even less to worry about.

Trademark is much stronger than what you believe, since they have registered HDMI as a trademark that will cover every single rewrite in that you cannot write "HDMI compatible" without using the words "HDMI". Also the "misleading" term will apply to every single item sold for video and audio usage since that is the very market where HDMI is registered.

Aka the "it did not mislead" only applies when you have Apple the Phone/Computer/Music company vs Grannies Apples that sells apples. The moment Granny tries to sell Cellphones, maskOS computers or music then she it cooked and will get sued out of oblivion.

E.g Microsoft is routinely using trademark to win over domains from scam companies and cybersquatters.

Many believe trademark to be weak because you can loose your trademark if you #1 don't protect it vigilantly (as compared with patents and copyright that you never can loose due to being passive) and #2 that you can loose it if the term becomes generic (which HDMI have no risk of since no one uses the term HDMI to refer to anything other than the actual HDMI connector).

[There're totally FDR patents.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
[Also there's a generic HDMI patent.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
[DSC is also patented.](https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021155869A1/en)

I would actually argue that one's ability to maintain it is trademark's strength.
Trademarks are legit for as long the general public has a certain association with it, which is theoretically infinite. Copyright and patent both have temporal limitations as LEGO and Disney can attest.

Also you can totally lose patent rights, due to passiveness. You have to actively apply for patents and [patent term extensions](https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-terms-extended) and contrary to both copyright and trademark this costs a pretty dime.

In its nature trademark only protects naming rights. The AMD team could name this patch jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew and let people be happy jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew worked with HDMI, since Linux HDMI FSR support isn't something you place in your advertisement. You say HDMI FSR, which you're allowed to do, because you're licensed on Windows.

On your reaction to @phebliac the answer is simple [patent.](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220140543A1/en)

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

If its based on existing HDMI work it can break copyright and patents can still be wielded.
Trademark is weak, because its legal coverage much more limited and its punishments are much less bad.
For trademark the infringed party needs to proof the trademark infringement is misleading to consumers and you can't use it to get an existing product from the market, just its marketing.
Also dodging trademark can sometimes be as easy as not describing your product as "HDMI", but "HDMI compatible" or simply using the same shape as HDMI for your port.

There are no patents covering the parts that the driver is implementing, but pretending that there are I don't see the reason for your argument since that would still make open vs closed drivers a non issue for HDMI Forum since had it been covered by a patent then they would have even less to worry about.

Trademark is much stronger than what you believe, since they have registered HDMI as a trademark that will cover every single rewrite in that you cannot write "HDMI compatible" without using the words "HDMI". Also the "misleading" term will apply to every single item sold for video and audio usage since that is the very market where HDMI is registered.

Aka the "it did not mislead" only applies when you have Apple the Phone/Computer/Music company vs Grannies Apples that sells apples. The moment Granny tries to sell Cellphones, maskOS computers or music then she it cooked and will get sued out of oblivion.

E.g Microsoft is routinely using trademark to win over domains from scam companies and cybersquatters.

Many believe trademark to be weak because you can loose your trademark if you #1 don't protect it vigilantly (as compared with patents and copyright that you never can loose due to being passive) and #2 that you can loose it if the term becomes generic (which HDMI have no risk of since no one uses the term HDMI to refer to anything other than the actual HDMI connector).

[There're totally FDR patents.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
[Also there's a generic HDMI patent.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
[DSC is also patented.](https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021155869A1/en)

I would actually argue that one's ability to maintain it is trademark's strength.
Trademarks are legit for as long the general public has a certain association with it, which is theoretically infinite. Copyright and patent both have temporal limitations as LEGO and Disney can attest.

Also you can totally lose patent rights, due to passiveness. You have to actively apply for patents and [patent term extensions](https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-terms-extended) and contrary to both copyright and trademark this costs a pretty dime.

In its nature trademark only protects naming rights. The AMD team could name this patch jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew and let people be happy jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew worked with HDMI, since Linux HDMI FSR support isn't something you place in your advertisement. You say HDMI FSR, which you're allowed to do, because you're licensed on Windows.

On your reaction to @phebliac the answer is simple [patent.](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220140543A1/en)

It isn't just patents since HDMI only have patents on the wiring and actual connector. Still you can have a GPU with a HDMI port (where you use a port from a HDMI licensee so the patent is covered) that will be destroyed by customs if your GPU is not on the list. They do similar to things like Raybans, Rolexes and other fashion brands and I have a hard time believeing that those are covered by patents (but I could be wrong).

And btw patent extensions are for drugs only, the reason being that it can take several years to get your drug approved so to compensate your patent can be extended.

In any case we are way past what the context was which was why they where against the open drivers in the first place and why they now changed their mind ;)

Not only [wiring, but also some of the software implementation.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
For the fashion brands the infringing products are shipped with their logo on them, which is covered by trademark, although they do hold some design patents.

About the drugs. You're right oopsie.

For the reason to avoid open drivers.
I suspect that might have to do with HDCP and how it's protected by the WCT treaty(or DMCA if we want to be USA centric). In effect this means nobody is allowed to do research about their work unless they shared the code themselves, so it keeps a bunch of pesky security researchers at bay and their entertainment industry sponsors happy.

Edit:
On why they changed their minds. I suspect market access allowing access in the small, but growing Linux market without risking your latest products.

No it was not about HDCP, remember that they have had an open HDMI2.0 driver for years, it was only adding the 2.1 bits that they where not allowed to do. Besides AMD does HDCP in their PSP-chip on the GPU and that part is not open.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

If appear in gog will be awesome, i dont care online

😀

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

If its based on existing HDMI work it can break copyright and patents can still be wielded.
Trademark is weak, because its legal coverage much more limited and its punishments are much less bad.
For trademark the infringed party needs to proof the trademark infringement is misleading to consumers and you can't use it to get an existing product from the market, just its marketing.
Also dodging trademark can sometimes be as easy as not describing your product as "HDMI", but "HDMI compatible" or simply using the same shape as HDMI for your port.

There are no patents covering the parts that the driver is implementing, but pretending that there are I don't see the reason for your argument since that would still make open vs closed drivers a non issue for HDMI Forum since had it been covered by a patent then they would have even less to worry about.

Trademark is much stronger than what you believe, since they have registered HDMI as a trademark that will cover every single rewrite in that you cannot write "HDMI compatible" without using the words "HDMI". Also the "misleading" term will apply to every single item sold for video and audio usage since that is the very market where HDMI is registered.

Aka the "it did not mislead" only applies when you have Apple the Phone/Computer/Music company vs Grannies Apples that sells apples. The moment Granny tries to sell Cellphones, maskOS computers or music then she it cooked and will get sued out of oblivion.

E.g Microsoft is routinely using trademark to win over domains from scam companies and cybersquatters.

Many believe trademark to be weak because you can loose your trademark if you #1 don't protect it vigilantly (as compared with patents and copyright that you never can loose due to being passive) and #2 that you can loose it if the term becomes generic (which HDMI have no risk of since no one uses the term HDMI to refer to anything other than the actual HDMI connector).

[There're totally FDR patents.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
[Also there's a generic HDMI patent.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
[DSC is also patented.](https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021155869A1/en)

I would actually argue that one's ability to maintain it is trademark's strength.
Trademarks are legit for as long the general public has a certain association with it, which is theoretically infinite. Copyright and patent both have temporal limitations as LEGO and Disney can attest.

Also you can totally lose patent rights, due to passiveness. You have to actively apply for patents and [patent term extensions](https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-terms-extended) and contrary to both copyright and trademark this costs a pretty dime.

In its nature trademark only protects naming rights. The AMD team could name this patch jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew and let people be happy jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew worked with HDMI, since Linux HDMI FSR support isn't something you place in your advertisement. You say HDMI FSR, which you're allowed to do, because you're licensed on Windows.

On your reaction to @phebliac the answer is simple [patent.](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220140543A1/en)

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

If its based on existing HDMI work it can break copyright and patents can still be wielded.
Trademark is weak, because its legal coverage much more limited and its punishments are much less bad.
For trademark the infringed party needs to proof the trademark infringement is misleading to consumers and you can't use it to get an existing product from the market, just its marketing.
Also dodging trademark can sometimes be as easy as not describing your product as "HDMI", but "HDMI compatible" or simply using the same shape as HDMI for your port.

There are no patents covering the parts that the driver is implementing, but pretending that there are I don't see the reason for your argument since that would still make open vs closed drivers a non issue for HDMI Forum since had it been covered by a patent then they would have even less to worry about.

Trademark is much stronger than what you believe, since they have registered HDMI as a trademark that will cover every single rewrite in that you cannot write "HDMI compatible" without using the words "HDMI". Also the "misleading" term will apply to every single item sold for video and audio usage since that is the very market where HDMI is registered.

Aka the "it did not mislead" only applies when you have Apple the Phone/Computer/Music company vs Grannies Apples that sells apples. The moment Granny tries to sell Cellphones, maskOS computers or music then she it cooked and will get sued out of oblivion.

E.g Microsoft is routinely using trademark to win over domains from scam companies and cybersquatters.

Many believe trademark to be weak because you can loose your trademark if you #1 don't protect it vigilantly (as compared with patents and copyright that you never can loose due to being passive) and #2 that you can loose it if the term becomes generic (which HDMI have no risk of since no one uses the term HDMI to refer to anything other than the actual HDMI connector).

[There're totally FDR patents.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
[Also there's a generic HDMI patent.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
[DSC is also patented.](https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021155869A1/en)

I would actually argue that one's ability to maintain it is trademark's strength.
Trademarks are legit for as long the general public has a certain association with it, which is theoretically infinite. Copyright and patent both have temporal limitations as LEGO and Disney can attest.

Also you can totally lose patent rights, due to passiveness. You have to actively apply for patents and [patent term extensions](https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/patent-terms-extended) and contrary to both copyright and trademark this costs a pretty dime.

In its nature trademark only protects naming rights. The AMD team could name this patch jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew and let people be happy jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew worked with HDMI, since Linux HDMI FSR support isn't something you place in your advertisement. You say HDMI FSR, which you're allowed to do, because you're licensed on Windows.

On your reaction to @phebliac the answer is simple [patent.](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220140543A1/en)

It isn't just patents since HDMI only have patents on the wiring and actual connector. Still you can have a GPU with a HDMI port (where you use a port from a HDMI licensee so the patent is covered) that will be destroyed by customs if your GPU is not on the list. They do similar to things like Raybans, Rolexes and other fashion brands and I have a hard time believeing that those are covered by patents (but I could be wrong).

And btw patent extensions are for drugs only, the reason being that it can take several years to get your drug approved so to compensate your patent can be extended.

In any case we are way past what the context was which was why they where against the open drivers in the first place and why they now changed their mind ;)

Not only [wiring, but also some of the software implementation.](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/25/09/5065fa9a3d32b3/US11570489.pdf)
For the fashion brands the infringing products are shipped with their logo on them, which is covered by trademark, although they do hold some design patents.

About the drugs. You're right oopsie.

For the reason to avoid open drivers.
I suspect that might have to do with HDCP and how it's protected by the WCT treaty(or DMCA if we want to be USA centric). In effect this means nobody is allowed to do research about their work unless they shared the code themselves, so it keeps a bunch of pesky security researchers at bay and their entertainment industry sponsors happy.

Edit:
On why they changed their minds. I suspect market access allowing access in the small, but growing Linux market without risking your latest products.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

The loading bug is frustrating, but I'm really pleased with the game itself so far. My first base taught me the basics, but by the time you're encouraged to build a second base, everything went very smoothly and I'm impressed with how much content there is!

There are periods where I'm wondering what to do next next, but they do a good job of constantly pushing the story along. Really enjoying it.

And the big squid monster? Terrifying. Love it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment