<surftom@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103688440.284627.4970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
stupid me for posting the day before I went on my Xmas leave but...
> Last I heard, I2C was a registered trademark and you had to pay Philips
> for using it.
Ah ha, so the name is trademarked and you have to pay Philips to
use it, but the invention is (probably) out of patent so you are
free to use it in a design if you don't say so.
Ta
tim
Reply by Ulf Samuelsson●December 22, 20042004-12-22
<surftom@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1103688440.284627.4970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Last I heard, I2C was a registered trademark and you had to pay Philips
> for using it. There's a lot of these shenanegans being played -
> OneWire, SPI, I2C etc. I think that manufacturers have tried to play by
> the rules and still let you know what they mean - Atmel uses the TWI -
> Two wire interface that can be used with I2C
>
> But you're right - it is annoying
>
> Tom
>
Yes, you should ask Philips to adopt the TWI
so we can have one standard :-)
--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com
This is a personal view which may or may not be
share by my Employer Atmel Nordic AB
Reply by ●December 22, 20042004-12-22
Last I heard, I2C was a registered trademark and you had to pay Philips
for using it. There's a lot of these shenanegans being played -
OneWire, SPI, I2C etc. I think that manufacturers have tried to play by
the rules and still let you know what they mean - Atmel uses the TWI -
Two wire interface that can be used with I2C
But you're right - it is annoying
Tom
tim wrote:
> I am currently working with a range of peripherals whos
> control lines look remarkably like an I2C interface.
>
> The data sheets go into great detail about how the data and
> clock line are used to communicate with the device and how
> it has an own 'address' so that you can differentiate it from
> other devices etc.......
>
> Why not just say that it's an I2C comptable device FFS.
>
> Do they have to pay Philips some extra money for admitting
> that it's I2C rather than pretending that it is something else?
>
> (and is it really still in patent after 20 years?)
>
> sorry rant over.
>
> tim
Reply by Mike Harrison●December 21, 20042004-12-21
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:32:17 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <cq7eol$ac4$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>520010973502.removethis@t-online.de says...
>>
>> I am currently working with a range of peripherals whos
>> control lines look remarkably like an I2C interface.
>>
>> The data sheets go into great detail about how the data and
>> clock line are used to communicate with the device and how
>> it has an own 'address' so that you can differentiate it from
>> other devices etc.......
>>
>> Why not just say that it's an I2C comptable device FFS.
>>
>> Do they have to pay Philips some extra money for admitting
>> that it's I2C rather than pretending that it is something else?
>>
>> (and is it really still in patent after 20 years?)
>>
>> sorry rant over.
>>
>> tim
>
>Well, yes, they DO have to pay Philips if they use the term "I2C" or
>"IIC".
>In exchange, Philips grants them a unique device identifier for their
>product.
Not always - only if it is a new type of device - e.g. all eeproms have the same address prefix.
Reply by Gene S. Berkowitz●December 21, 20042004-12-21
In article <cq7eol$ac4$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
520010973502.removethis@t-online.de says...
>
> I am currently working with a range of peripherals whos
> control lines look remarkably like an I2C interface.
>
> The data sheets go into great detail about how the data and
> clock line are used to communicate with the device and how
> it has an own 'address' so that you can differentiate it from
> other devices etc.......
>
> Why not just say that it's an I2C comptable device FFS.
>
> Do they have to pay Philips some extra money for admitting
> that it's I2C rather than pretending that it is something else?
>
> (and is it really still in patent after 20 years?)
>
> sorry rant over.
>
> tim
Well, yes, they DO have to pay Philips if they use the term "I2C" or
"IIC".
In exchange, Philips grants them a unique device identifier for their
product.
It's also a trademark.
--Gene
Reply by peterk●December 20, 20042004-12-20
Oops, of course you are right, it's TWI. I should put my brain into
gear before writing.
Peter
Reply by Spehro Pefhany●December 20, 20042004-12-20
On 20 Dec 2004 13:22:36 -0800, the renowned "peterk"
<peterk.vt80@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just call it SPI like everybody else. It's probably more of a trademark
>than a patent issue in the same way you can't call your latest vacuum
>cleaner a Hoover.
>Peter
I think you mean "two wire".
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Reply by ●December 20, 20042004-12-20
SPI is not I2C. SPI is to "three-wire interface" as I2C is to "two wire
interface". Or to put it another way, SPI is to Motorola as I2C is to
Philips.
Also, note that "I2C-like" peripherals are in no way guaranteed to be
FULLY I2C compatible.
Reply by Grant Edwards●December 20, 20042004-12-20
On 2004-12-20, peterk <peterk.vt80@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just call it SPI like everybody else.
Because I2C and SPI aren't very similar at all?
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'LL get it!! It's
at probably a FEW of my
visi.com ITALIAN GIRL-FRIENDS!!
Reply by peterk●December 20, 20042004-12-20
Just call it SPI like everybody else. It's probably more of a trademark
than a patent issue in the same way you can't call your latest vacuum
cleaner a Hoover.
Peter