Preventing More Delays (sd License)

[spaceballs3000]

I like to not see any more delays due to business decision of skipping steps.

Pandora will have to get an SD License, because it uses SD 4bit mode. I've had to deal with SD before, and there is no way for them to avoid it (unless they use dataflash MMC cards.)

sdcard.org could cause Pandora to be delayed even more, I would just pay them the $4,000 and be done with it.

I've pm craigix about this weeks ago, and I've gotten no response.

 

[Vorporeal]

Something tells me that this isn't necessary. I can see no reason why any random company producing a device that uses SD storage would need to pay a licensing fee. I can see why a company making a chip that can interface with SD devices would have to pay a licensing fee - but that would be covered by TI and would be paid for in the cost of the OMAP chips themselves (or whatever ancillary chip does SD support).

 

[EvilDragon]

AFAIK (I wasn't the one to check this), the SD has been licensed by TI for the OMAP already, so it should be safe.

 

[spaceballs3000]

Something tells me that this isn't necessary. I can see no reason why any random company producing a device that uses SD storage would need to pay a licensing fee. I can see why a company making a chip that can interface with SD devices would have to pay a licensing fee - but that would be covered by TI and would be paid for in the cost of the OMAP chips themselves (or whatever ancillary chip does SD support).
You might think that should be the way it works, but business license stuffs are often
not logical.

You might be right as the SD people might have misleading me when I went through the process, but by gut feeling tells me they are correct.

http://www.sdcard.org/developers/faq/#licenseforlogo


Q: Does my company need to obtain a license to sell a product that hosts the SD card?
A: Yes ...

more details -->
http://www.sdcard.org/developers/join/lice...rd_hala_faq.pdf

 

[Vorporeal]

TI's OMAP chip is actually the SD host - it does all of the hardware go-between for the software and the data on the SD card. That is most likely what requires the license, as to make such a chip, you need to know in-depth information about the SD specification, information that you would need to license. Using a chip that does the processing for you wouldn't require a license, as you're not directly involved with the SD specification/technical details, you're just using a product which is directly involved and for which the licenses have already been paid.

After looking at your second link, I noticed that everything in there refers to the SD Specification. Nothing OP does touches the specification, that's all in TI's realm, and so TI has probably already paid the license fees (as ED said above).

EDIT: Also, your first link is referring to licensing the _logo_ for use. We're not going to be using the logo - we're going to print on the device a symbol that doesn't require licensing, but can still be recognized as something that refers to SD cards.

 

[Tor]

QUOTE

Q: Does my company need to obtain a license to sell a product that hosts the SD card?
A: Yes ...


Well, in this case it's TI that sells a product that hosts the SD card, isn't it? And they have already paid.

Should it be paid twice if you re-sell the product? IANAL, but that sounds wrong to me.

 

[spaceballs3000]

You all have good points, I think I need to send them an email on this to see if they need to refund my money then.

 

[Squidge]

We purchase ICs at work which have a SDIO controller built-in. However, the manufacturer clearly states that it is up to whoever builds that IC into a marketable product to pay for the appropriate licenses. They don't include the SD license in the cost of the chips for the simple reason that not everyone would want to use such a feature in there designs, and for those people it is daft to pay a license for something your not using.

It could well be the same for OMAP ICs - sure OMAP host an SD controller inside, but should they be forced to pay the SD licensing fee just because of that? Even if the product it ends up in doesn't use any form of SD hardware? In my view, those people should get the IC cheaper.

After looking at your second link, I noticed that everything in there refers to the SD Specification. Nothing OP does touches the specification, that's all in TI's realm, and so TI has probably already paid the license fees (as ED said above).

Not quite. All the TI hardware does is send a command from a user program to the sd card and get the result. Those commands are clearly covered in the specification, as are all the card registers that every SD driver requires in order to make use of the SD card. For example, SET_BUS_WIDTH is required in the software driver, not the TI hardware, and without it, your restricted to 1-bit mode. It's the same for specifying the maximum speed of the card.

 

[hedwards]

You all have good points, I think I need to send them an email on this to see if they need to refund my money then.

I'd ask, though I'm sure they'll say no. But the money is for the use of the Logo which is typically tied into the implementation details. Meaning that if you're creating hardware to work with it then you'd be paying. And really if OP isn't creating the hardware or writing the drivers there isn't likely to be a problem at all. EDIT: Assuming that somebody paid the licensing fee.

In that case the worst of it would be being barred from using their logo. Which wouldn't really take that long to remedy if need be. The whole point of the fee is to make sure that any hardware that claims to support SD does so per specs.

 

[OrR]

We probably want this license:
http://www.sdcard.org/developers/join/licensing/hala/
To get it, a payment of 1000$/year plus a general membership of 2000$/year are necessary.

 

[spaceballs3000]

...
In that case the worst of it would be being barred from using their logo. ...

At least I know this is 100% false, SDcard.org lawyers will send nice letter barring any device sales if the device has a SD slot that uses the SDIO protocol without an license, Logo or Not.

 

[Phawx]

OP should probably take a look at this, thanks for the possible head's up, SB3000.

 

[Squidge]

Of course, there's a way around most things, and the easiest and cheapest way around the numerous trademarks, intellectual property and patents of an sd card is to just use a 99p SD->USB adaptor, as you then have no involvement whatsoever in the SD cards communication. However, I think things are a little far along for OP to do that.

Sandisk seem to be a big player in the SDCard group of companies, and have always said "We'll defend our position vigorously" with regards to there patents, and judging from existing news stories, I wouldn't mess with them - they bite hard and don't let go.

 

[hedwards]

...
In that case the worst of it would be being barred from using their logo. ...

At least I know this is 100% false, SDcard.org lawyers will send nice letter barring any device sales if the device has a SD slot that uses the SDIO protocol without an license, Logo or Not.

Hmm, you conveniently left out an important portion of my post. And no they aren't legally allowed to do that. That would be a matter for the courts but using the SDIO protocol isn't something they have that level of control over. They can ask a court to issue and injunction, but they'd have to demonstrate that the device was infringing and that it wasn't reverse engineered in a manner that is legal.

Yes, it would be painfully expensive for both parties, but the rights as you describe them are the wet dream of every tech CEO hack in America.

So no, you don't know that.

 

[OrR]

You can reverse engineer all you want but my legal understanding is that that still does not protect you from patent claims.

 

[MWeston]

TI has said that customers are responsible for licensing of the SD protocol so we'll have to pay for it. At least we can use their logo now.

 

[spaceballs3000]

...
In that case the worst of it would be being barred from using their logo. ...

At least I know this is 100% false, SDcard.org lawyers will send nice letter barring any device sales if the device has a SD slot that uses the SDIO protocol without an license, Logo or Not.

Hmm, you conveniently left out an important portion of my post. And no they aren't legally allowed to do that. That would be a matter for the courts but using the SDIO protocol isn't something they have that level of control over. They can ask a court to issue and injunction, but they'd have to demonstrate that the device was infringing and that it wasn't reverse engineered in a manner that is legal.

Yes, it would be painfully expensive for both parties, but the rights as you describe them are the wet dream of every tech CEO hack in America.

So no, you don't know that.


You talk a lot, but your still wrong.

There is no law to prevent lawyers sending letters on behalf of their clients to threaten to sue you.

Also regarding the legal system, it's you that has to prove your not infringing, you speak like you haven't had dealt with system before.

 

[Izolo]

TI has said that customers are responsible for licensing of the SD protocol so we'll have to pay for it. At least we can use their logo now.

Good thing this was pointed out now and not later.

 

[spaceballs3000]

TI has said that customers are responsible for licensing of the SD protocol so we'll have to pay for it. At least we can use their logo now.

Thanks MWeston for confirming from TI.

I've also sent an email asking the same question (because I paid it for a recent project, and now I wonder if I didnt' need to pay), I'll post their response when I hear back from them.

 

[conso]

Now that we are on licensing fees, what about the fvat-patents? TomTom was recently sued by Microsoft for those. If it was my decision, I'd stick to ext2 and remove fvat from the base-kernel (i guess a fvat-module could still be made available for download, similar to how codecs are handled), but that's not my decision. Just wanted to warn before unnecessery costs come up.