Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: GDC sues Dolby over TMS and 3D audio interoperability

This is topic GDC sues Dolby over TMS and 3D audio interoperability in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=002646

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-13-2016, 09:15 AM:

Well placed around CinemaCon:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/future-digital-cinema-may-be-882944

----
While Oracle is about to square off against Google in a $9 billion trial over copyrighted Java API code, the entertainment industry is witnessing its own cutting-edge dispute over interoperability codes now being used in the digital cinema industry.
As theater owners across the country continue to switch from the use of physical film prints to entirely digital systems, a lawsuit was filed Monday by GDC Technology Limited against Dolby Laboratories. The plaintiff counts itself as one of the largest sellers of software and hardware to theater owners, and it has a system that has been installed on approximately 40,000 screens worldwide that allows video and audio content to be stored and played.
To bring motion pictures like Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice to fans, digital cinema systems rely upon media servers, sound processors, projectors and maybe most essentially, software that contains the messages and commands that tie everything together.
"There is nothing secret about these interoperability codes," states GDC's complaint filed in California federal court. "For years market participants, including GDC and Dolby, have readily shared their interoperability codes and related information with one another.... Were the market participants to not share this information, they would make it more difficult to sell their products to theater owners, whose needs may be better served by buying the four basic digital cinema components from different manufacturers and sellers, or in different combinations."
According to the lawsuit, Dolby shared its codes "enthusiastically" and without license for years, but once it acquired a media server manufacturer called Doremi, it decided it would no longer do so. The change in position allegedly not only benefited its newly owned subsidiary, but also enhanced the prospect of Dolby's theater sound system called Atmos, which went head-to-head with a GDC licensed immersive sound system called DTS:X.
Dolby is said to be claiming intellectual property rights in the interoperability codes to "pressure" customers, notifying GDC "that its protocols and interconnection codes are subject to copyright and other unspecified intellectual property rights. Further, Dolby demanded that GDC refrain from telling GDC’s customers that GDC has the right to use Dolby’s interconnection codes."
GDC says Dolby knows very well that interoperability codes are "not protectable forms of intellectual property," pointing to dozens of digital cinema related works registered by Dolby that don't assert coverage for those codes. And even if that's not true, GDC says it "is engaged in fair use," that it writes its own software code and that the only element being used from Dolby are the messages and commands being used by other participants in the industry.
The plaintiff, represented by Robert Schwartz at Irell & Manella, is now in court seeking declaratory relief that the codes don't constitute copyrighted subject matter nor trade secrets and that Dolby should be held liable for tortious interference and unfair competition. Read the entire complaint.
We've reached out to Dolby and will add any statement.
---

- Carsten

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-13-2016, 11:21 AM:

Interesting that GDC wants the case decided by a jury (final page of complaint). Unless they are able to select a jury consisting of at least some IT and/or a/v technology professionals, I'd have thought that there is a significant risk that jurors wouldn't understand (or at least, fully understand) the evidence they were being given, and therefore make the wrong call.

For the last few years or so before I left Britain, there were regular calls by defense lawyers in medical negligence and complicated financial cases (criminal ones) for them either to be tried by a judge alone, or for the jury to be restricted to qualified professionals in those areas, who pointed to what they argued were major miscarriages of justice in the past. Those calls didn't go anywhere, but my understanding is that the issue is still live.

In terms of the case itself, I wonder what Dolby's defense will be? The obvious one I can think of is that under the relevant precedents and/or statutes, the codes are copyrightable IP, that choosing to allow competitors to use them in the past is not the same thing as releasing them into the public domain, and therefore that the law allows Dolby simply to change its mind on that at any given point in time, whether their competitors like it or not.

A lot of the text of that complaint says, in effect, "Dolby co-operated with us in the past, they aren't now, and we think that's unfair." Unless there is specific case law that does actually establish that sharing those codes is a one-way ticket (i.e. that you can't revoke the right to use them later), I wouldn't have thought that this would hold a lot of water.

The claim also made assertions, without any evidence to back them up, about the claimed superiority of DTS:X over Atmos (no figures for the number of installations, for example, whereas there are for server sales). If this becomes a serious issue in the trial, it will surely become established pretty quickly that no-one's immersive audio system has achieved mass-rollout, mainly because of the cost of rewiring auditoria, not the competing features of the formats and players themselves. In a way, that makes the existence of this lawsuit interesting, because it indicates GDC's belief that this market is growable. Would they be bothering to sue Dolby if they'd concluded that immersive sound is effectively a stillborn technology?

It'll be interesting to see how this one pans out, to put it mildly.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-13-2016, 12:38 PM:

Way before I entered the scene in this area it was Dolby's arrogance that turned off a lot of my customers back in the early Dolby Digital sound days (1980's) and most went with DTS then. IMHO if Dolby doesn't want to appear even by a simple licensing deal in GDC's TMS systems then that's a pretty stupid decision on their part. 40K screens is approaching nearly half of the worlds screens and that count just continues to climb. In the long run it'll be Dolby's loss.
But either way I could actually care less what happens here... none of my present customers have anything Dolby nor will they in the foreseeable future due to poor past experiences with Dolby before I ever entered the scene here.

Mark

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 04-14-2016, 07:14 AM:

What do they mean by "interoperability codes"? APIs and such that would allow third party automations and TMS systems to communicate with their servers? In my extremely unexpert legal opinion, I would tend to agree with Leo that there isn't much that can be done about that. Am I missing something?

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 04-14-2016, 07:23 AM:

The legal complaint (linked to in an earlier post) provides more detail. As I read it, Dolby is objecting to GDC's TMS communicating with Dolby servers using a protocol originally supplied to GDC by Dolby. They compare it to a IR universal remote control that knows how to talk to various devices whether that device manufacturer authorized it or not. It gets into whether protocols or unique byte strings in a standard protocol can be copyrighted. GDC is asking the court to say a GDC TMS is free to communicate with a Dolby server and for the court to tell Dolby to stop telling people it is not ok for GDC TMS to communicate with the Dolby server. My quick summary, anyway. For the details, read the complaint. It will be interesting to see the response.

Harold

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-14-2016, 08:08 AM:

Dolby Cinema Processors use a serial/ethernet command protocol for format and volume changes. Now, could Dolby at some point, after these have been used for years by other manufacturers, prevent them from being used? Thousands of screens would have to stop working, because you are not allowed to send a 'cp750.sys.mute 0 <CR>' from your non-Dolby Server to a CP750?

I am not familiar with US law, but I think the terms 'fair use' and 'unlawful interference' are the key elements here. Also keep in mind that already Dolbys Doremi aquisition had to be cleared. Now Dolby taking such steps...

I don't think Dolby will be able to get through with this. Too many other TMS companies with a far larger market share. They can not simply exclude only GDC with a general copyright statement because they are a competitor in other areas.
Will other TMS companies receive the same statement from Dolby?
Is it wise to buy equipment from Dolby if it limits your choices for interoperability?

The interesting question is, what is Dolby REALLY trying to achieve with this?

- Carsten

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 04-14-2016, 10:48 AM:

My question is, when did the management of Dolby start doing crack? (Maybe it was sometime shortly after September 12, 2013?)

They have really lost touch with reality and seem to be, customer-relations-wise, a mere shell of their former self.

Ray Dolby is spinning in his grave...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-14-2016, 11:08 AM:

No Tony, they went on crack back in the he 80's with the advent of SRD.

Posted by Mattias Mattsson (Member # 4308) on 04-14-2016, 04:43 PM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
Dolby Cinema Processors use a serial/ethernet command protocol for format and volume changes. Now, could Dolby at some point, after these have been used for years by other manufacturers, prevent them from being used?

I believe the case is about the API for the Doremi line of servers/IMB:s. These have always required signing an NDA (even before the Dolby takeover) whereas Dolby has been more generous sharing the API details for the DSS servers.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 04-15-2016, 03:12 AM:

I guess Dolby are trying to push their TMS and they're slowly getting less helpful with other TMS manufacturers in terms of API exchange.
I do not think Dolby can prevent anybody from using previously-released code but they could change the existing one or add new undocumented features. At that point third-party TMS's would stop working reliably with Dolby equipment and Dolby's reply would be 'buy a Dolby TMS'.

Hopefully they don't end up burned as the Dolby TMS will need third party API's to work well too!! [Smile]

In my opinion this is just a very narrow-minded view of the market. It cannot work anymore these days. They will hit a brick wall.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 04-15-2016, 10:07 AM:

quote:
Hopefully they don't end up burned as the Dolby TMS will need third party API's to work well too!!

Not if you have all Dolby equipment. In my opinion, Dolby is pretty awesome if you have ALL Dolby. Start mixing in third party anything that Dolby makes an equivalent of (which is pretty much everything but the projector), and the Dolby system becomes less and less awesome. Of course, it's just not a good idea to make a TMS that doesn't support servers other than your own. But in my experience it seems that each of the TMS systems that are made by a server manufacturer work best with their own servers. (Of course that's not to say they don't work at all with the other servers; sometimes there are certain annoyances you just have to live with by virtue of the fact that the two items are made by different vendors.)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-15-2016, 12:56 PM:

quote: Ken Lackner
Start mixing in third party anything that Dolby makes an equivalent of (which is pretty much everything but the projector), and the Dolby system becomes less and less awesome.

That's a very good way to put it Ken! I agree that people that are ONLY exposed to Dolby equipped booths have no idea how good the other equipment actually is until a piece of their beloved Dolby gear gets replaced with another competing brand.
If Dolby doesn't agree to make their code universally available then hopefully no one else gives Dolby their code. The end result is that no one is gonna buy Dolby gear... which these days really isn't Dolby designed gear anyway.

Mark

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-15-2016, 01:07 PM:

It sounds like Dolby is going for Vendor Lock.

That's the reason I don't buy Sony products very much. There are others that do the same thing. I don't buy those either.

If they are going to start playing the "None of your equippment will work correctly if you don't buy 100% Dolby" game, I'll stop buying Dolby products, too.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-16-2016, 08:53 AM:

As I understand it...it is the Doremi side of things that never provided GDC their API codes. The Dolby DSS line did and was either the first or one of the first to have their server support the GDC TMS. I'm sure Doremi's position was to not support a direct sever competitor since Doremi had a TMS system. Doremi, conversely allowed 3rd party TMS companies to have their APIs. Now that Dolby has taken over the Doremi products...they seem to be continuing the Doremi position.

Personally, I think it flies in the face of the whole DCI thing of interoperability. That is the CUSTOMER should be able to choose what equipment they want and everything should play nice. The example was we didn't want a Dolby, DTS, SDDS debacle again where exhibitors had to buy multiple pieces for everything to work. That is why every IMB has the same card slot specifications but Christie thew down that gauntlet with the Solaria1/1+ by refusing to allow 3rd party IMBs in there...they've backed down to allowing them with the CP2208. To a degree Barco has followed suit now on their Laser and the 6E though you can now, I believe use HDSDI, if not IMBs of other brands since the ICP is supported. Then again, I heard at the show that Christie is refusing to have a USL position on their projectors for IMBs...so this pettiness thing continues.

I question if APIs can really be copyrighted. This sort of thing would have surly been tried during the "IBM Compatible" days of the 1980s in the PC world. Even when I was in college, we had assignments where we had to create DOS interrupts that would run on the 8088 chipset. All we knew were what the interrupt was supposed to do and we then wrote our own Assembly code to have it mimic what the real-deal was.

It isn't like one is getting your source code because they have your API/commands/responses. Just because someone says "hello" to you doesn't mean you know what they are thinking.

It wouldn't be too hard to find the APIs through mere observations of port activity. I've done it on some A/V equipment.

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 06-27-2016, 02:04 AM:

Steve, I am fairly certain that the GDC TMS does (or at least did) support Doremi servers. I know this because a few years back I installed an NEC IMS (which is made for NEC by Doremi) into an NC-900 projector and wanted to install a GDC TMS to control it.

GDC told me there should be no problem because their TMS supported Doremi servers, however when I set it all up, the TMS could partly but not fully communicate with the IMS. So I contacted Jim Murray at Doremi who said words to the effect that "there is no way we are giving our codes to GDC for the NEC IMS".

So I think this attitude from Doremi developed later, (maybe because GDC were outselling them?) and as you say is now being continued by Dolby.

All seems very petty to me, but no surprise as I have come to expect such things from certain cinema manufacturers.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 06-27-2016, 06:24 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Interesting that GDC wants the case decided by a jury (final page of complaint). Unless they are able to select a jury consisting of at least some IT and/or a/v technology professionals, I'd have thought that there is a significant risk that jurors wouldn't understand (or at least, fully understand) the evidence they were being given, and therefore make the wrong call.

Often potential jurors who know about stuff are deselected. In the Oracle trial mentioned at the start of the article, the only juror who had an IT background was objected to and removed.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 06-27-2016, 08:37 AM:

From court records, as of June 7, GDC and Dolby were in settlement discussions and "about to exchange a term sheet reflecting proposed terms." Due to the progress in the settlement talks, the date for Dolby to respond to the GDC complaint has been extended to July 13.

Harold

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-27-2016, 08:55 AM:

It is my understand that in the USA, you must consistently enforce your copyright from the beginning, or you lose the ability to enforce it later. For example, I doubt that the various recording labels care that you put a video on youtube showing your child dancing to their music, but they care very much that someone down the road uses that a a precedent that you are not enforcing your copyright so they can use it royalty free in a future commercial work.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this may not reflect the actual law.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-03-2016, 08:22 PM:

It's over - and guess who won?

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=4574

---------
Hong Kong & San Francisco—Nov 1, 2016
GDC and Dolby Resolve Litigation

GDC Technology Limited (“GDC”) and Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (“Dolby”) have reached an agreement to resolve the litigation filed by GDC against Dolby.

As part of the resolution, GDC will dismiss its lawsuit against Dolby, and GDC and Dolby will grant each other licenses that will allow their respective theater management systems to interoperate with the other party’s digital cinema servers. The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential.

* * * * *

About GDC Technology Limited
GDC Technology Limited (“GDC”) is a digital cinema solutions provider. GDC develops, manufactures and sells media servers, content storage systems, theatre management systems and network operations center software for digital cinema. GDC is a licensee of the DTS:X object-based immersive sound technology from DTS, Inc. for the development of its media servers. In addition, GDC also provides a suite of digital cinema products and services, including integrated projection systems, 3D products, projector lamps and silver screens. GDC’s subsidiary, GDC Digital Cinema Network Limited, manages VPF for approximately 5,000 theater screens and 250 motion picture distributors worldwide. For more information, please visit www.gdc-tech.com.
---------

As always, the lawyers ...

- Carsten

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-03-2016, 08:38 PM:

If interested, you can read the court records at https://mai.hallikainen.org/org/legal/GDCvDolby/ .

Harold

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-04-2016, 06:08 AM:

I would interpret that as a GDC win. GDC can now add the Doremi servers to its line up of supported servers for its TMS. That is what GDC wanted and that is what they got. What did Dolby win? The ability to integrate GDC servers on its TMS? Were they really seeking that at the start of this or was that a face saving measure on the presumption that the Doremi TMS is to be expanded to include other servers?

In any event, this is how it should be. Everyone should work with everyone else and let the exhibitors decide what pieces to use from each vendor.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-04-2016, 10:12 AM:

Well, got to hand it to Dolby in every lawsuit I can remember they have had filed against them they managed settled them in litigation and not go to court.

This is a win-win situation for everyone involved.

Mark

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-04-2016, 11:39 AM:

...especially the exhibitor.

quote: David Buckley
Often potential jurors who know about stuff are deselected. In the Oracle trial mentioned at the start of the article, the only juror who had an IT background was objected to and removed.

If this went to trial and they eliminated tech people, the general population pool, i.e., Joe Remote-control-user will very easily understand the annoying concept incompatibility (he pictures the five remote controls sitting on his coffee table because none are compatible with different manufactures equipment). Now tell him that the plaintiff wants to prevent the company making the universal/learning from workin with their equipment and possibly with others manufactures as well and it's because of copyright infringement issues, and now Mr. consumer/juror pictures even more remote controls on his coffee table. Who do you think he's going to side with, the defendant who wants to vacate the copyright issue so that Joe's universal remote control can work with any number of pieces of equipment, or the plaintiff who wants to stop his universal remote from working?

And let's face it, copyright is not a favorite concept to the public at large and it wouldn't be going out on a limb to say that most of the public would come to court with a negative bias against most copyright issues...most cases copyright is seen as being in an adversarial position with the public, as in Copyright vs. Public Domain. I'm just saying...they were smart to settle. And of course it's all about money any way, which is what Dolby was after in the first place so no doubt the settlement included plenty of money changing hands. Now everyone is happy again.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-04-2016, 12:45 PM:

Interesting - I don't know if my english is good enough, but it seems that near the end the court was about to dismiss the case to Dolbys advantage. Then they settled?
Or did I get these documents wrong?

- Carsten

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-05-2016, 12:00 AM:

I am NOT a lawyer, but I read all the court documents. As I read it, GDC sued Dolby in state court saying Dolby interfered with their business by telling GDC customers that they were not authorized to use Dolby "interoperability codes" (TMS interface). Dolby replied that the "interoperability codes" are copyrighted, and the state court has no jurisdiction in copyright cases and asked for dismissal on that basis. GDC argues the opposite. GDC argues the codes are not copyrightable or, if copyrightable, their use is fair use. GDC argues that they are not seeking relief that a copyright claim would provide. There's a lot more there, but I think it can be summarized as GDC sues in state court claiming business interference. Dolby replies it's a copyright case which the state court cannot address. GDC argues it is not a copyright case, so the state court can address the issues. In the end, the sides settle, granting each other licenses to allow their TMSs to operate with the servers of the other.

Harold

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-05-2016, 01:13 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
And of course it's all about money any way, which is what Dolby was after in the first place so no doubt the settlement included plenty of money changing hands. Now everyone is happy again.

I would not assume Dolby is in it for short term money. It's always been about IP.
GDC doesn't have the kind of money Dolby would work that hard for.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-05-2016, 06:09 PM:

Add another "I am not a lawyer" (or a Constitutional scholar!) disclaimer, but I think I can guess why Dolby wanted to drag this into the realm of intellectual property, but GDC wanted to pursue this under the heading of business interference. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution is very clear that everything to do with IP law is federal (specifically, the responsibility of Congress), and there is no mention of it whatsoever in the states' rights provisions of the Constitution. Given that an assload of both statute and case law has already established that program code is copyrightable, GDC's case would presumably have been stillborn if it had been taken to a federal court and argued as a copyright issue.

I guess GDC believed that they had a solid case under the laws of California dealing with business interference. In any case, they seem to have achieved their aim, which is to be able to carry on integrating the automated operation of their products with Dolby's - in California, at least!

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 11-05-2016, 06:45 PM:

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-06-2016, 10:06 AM:

Does DCI also have say over how people's TMS's integrate with servers? If so then this may have been the cause for the lawsuit in the first place. If DCI stipulates inter-operability of any server on any TMS then I can see why all this happened. And in fact most TMS systems do accommodate all other servers.

Mark

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-06-2016, 11:56 AM:

I do not believe DCI addresses equipment interoperability other than the requirement that audio outputs be AES3. For example, at http://dcimovies.com/specification/DCI_DCSS_v12_with_errata_2012-1010.pdf#page=112 regarding intratheater messages, it says " Transactions need not be standardized. In assembling ransactions, the sequences of RRPs used may vary according to the equipment vendor or facility configuration." A standard would be nice, but we don't have one yet. As such, TMS vendors have to write interfaces to each server. While server manufacturers want support from every TMS vendor, in this case we have one supplier providing both the server and the TMS and did not want a particular TMS vendor to connect to their server, potentially locking in existing server customers to their TMS. It would be nice if a widely deployed interface were made open so everyone could write their code to the same thing. At this point, it would probably be an interface defined by one of the server manufacturers that all the TMS vendors have implemented. Server companies could implement this and have instant TMS compatibility. It would eliminate a lot of work for TMS vendors. But, are any of the server companies that have wide TMS support willing to freely license their interface? Then, are other server companies willing to adopt it?

Harold

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-06-2016, 12:17 PM:

We still don't know for sure wether this was adressing the DSS or Doremi line of servers, don't we? If it is for Doremi servers, Doremi DOES offer an API and documentation. I don't know wether GDC was ever successful registering for that API.

Maybe Doremi or Dolby was denying to them what they granted to other API users.

Maybe what was the center of this case is not contained in the API? But then again, how would other TMS achieve what they do?

Same must be true for the Dolby DSS line, as there are so many TMS's supporting them.

- Carsten

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-06-2016, 12:25 PM:

Dolby has worked on GDC TMS's for a very long time. So it had to be for Doremi.

Mark

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-06-2016, 01:05 PM:

Based on the copyright registration filed in the suit, it's Doremi. See https://mai.hallikainen.org/org/legal/GDCvDolby/031124007271.pdf .

Authors are:

Highlands Technologies, France
One-N Corporation, USA
Dolby France
Doremi Labs, France

Harold

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-06-2016, 01:46 PM:

Harold, Is the USL server compatible with the GDC TMS?

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-06-2016, 01:52 PM:

GDC has written an interface to the USL CMS-2200. Not all features work yet.

Harold

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-06-2016, 04:20 PM:

That's good to know. It would be nice if All applicable servers were listed in a drop down box on the TMS app like the projectors, sound processors and automation are. Right now just GDC and Dolby are on there. Perhaps were are nearing the point where that can happen now.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-06-2016, 07:20 PM:

Dolby always was more friendly to other TMSes since they never really had one of their own. Without the need for a NDA, one could download their API from the tech site. Doremi always required an NDA so they merely didn't offer it to GDC (but did everyone else, it would seem).

I can appreciate not wanting to force everyone into a rigid set of op codes that everyone must bow too. Very quickly, those would become a subset of a feature laden server and then the issue of if some of the features that pre-existed on a particular server were to be adopted as standard features of a DCI system would the originating manufacturer be required to rewrite that which they started to accommodate late-comers...etc.

That said, I could see a big advantage to having some functions standardized like lamp on/off, douser open/close and on the server side what it takes to build a show.

DCI should have required interoperability in order to be "DCI Compliant" That is, all of the APIs should have had to be openly available with the direct intent of interoperability between manufacturers. The same way that magically the HDSDI slot of all DLP projectors will hold all of the IMBs out there because the pinout was standardized. It is a prime example of how the exhibitor and manufacturer win. Anybody could chose anybody's projector or server. Christie tried to lock it in and look how they had to backpedal the Solaria 1/1+ back to the CP2208. I'm pretty sure that Barco's 6E projector now will work with other than the Alchemy too. I will give the Alchemy some slack in that it is a replacement for a standard item (ICP) as well as the mediablock/SM I suppose that Dolby/Doremi, QSC/USL or GDC could do likewise and develop a replacement for the ICP if they want their IMBs to break the 500Mbs bottleneck. Note, Christie was also guilty of not allowing the CAT745 in their projectors at first but did back down on that (They do have a "generic" position but have had a Dolby setting for some time now).

But again, DCI was supposed to be about interoperability as well as the other stuff. The example was given of the DTS, Dolby and SDDS/incompatible format debacle as an example. The whole every projector AND server were required to support both 2K and 4K was to ensure a degree of compatibility and to stave off an anticipated early obsolescence.

You know, giving out one's commands for control is not giving away company secrets. What those commands do internally are still hidden under cover. Just because I say "Play" doesn't mean I know how you did it. It is as stupid as requiring one to obtain a license agreement in order to hit the play button on their media device.

I remember in college having to write "clones" of the BIOS and DOS for the 8088 based machines of the day (in Assembly Language). And all we knew was what the function should do and what was to be received and placed in the registers. And that is how you were graded. How you went about doing your code was your business and unless it was VERY simple, it was expected that everyone would do things differently. Some would call it reverse engineering. You didn't look inside anyone's code. You merely put stuff in and saw how it came out or ensured that if a routine was to perform a particular function, that it did. To this day, I've never seen Microsoft's code though what I wrote (and my classmates) emulated it.

Shoot, even more recently, I've had to "crack" a device that the manufacturer doesn't provide the commands for by similar techniques (they only want it controlled by their controllers). I just stimulated it and seeing what it did and what it returned. I've never laid eyes on any of their published work but merely interpreted what I saw (and it works).