On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 04:48:34PM -0400, Mark Chambers wrote: > > > > 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. > > 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.
I was talking about the trademark infringement. You are talking about something completely different, patent-encumbered licensable technology. The naming is subject only to trademark considerations. Whether a bus implementation is subject to Philips licensing requirements (if any) is another area I'm not interested in. :) -Matt
