On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:54:44PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote: > 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. :)
Never mind. I lied about not being interestered (damn curiousity). Here's the scoop on licensing from the Opencores I2C implementation page. http://www.opencores.org/projects.cgi/web/i2c/faq -Matt
