> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:18:03PM -0600, VanBaren, Gerald (AGRE) wrote: > > Just to mess with your minds... I2C is a trademark of Philips > > Electronics N.V. so that is probably not the best choice from a > > legalistic point of view. > > It's been related to me several times that this is the reason why > most implementers refer to their interface/bus as IIC in > documentation. > > -Matt
Assuming this to be true, it still may be a bit misguided. Using 'i2c' to refer to a legal implementation is no more illegal than a restaurant putting 'Coke' on their menu. What does Philips want? They want royalties from implementations of i2c, and they do not want the term diluted by using it to refer to other similar protocols. So I don't think that just changing to 'iic' would pacify them in either of these cases. If it's truly i2c I don't think they care what you call your variables, (just so the chip manufacturer pays up) and if it's not, find a completely different name. Mark C.
