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
why not just say I2C?
Started by ●December 20, 2004
Reply by ●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
Reply by ●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 ●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 ●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. >PeterI 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
Reply by ●December 21, 20042004-12-21
In article <cq7eol$ac4$00$1@news.t-online.com>, 520010973502.removethis@t-online.de says...> > I am currently working with a range of peripherals whos > control lines look remarkably like an I2C interface. > > The data sheets go into great detail about how the data and > clock line are used to communicate with the device and how > it has an own 'address' so that you can differentiate it from > other devices etc....... > > Why not just say that it's an I2C comptable device FFS. > > Do they have to pay Philips some extra money for admitting > that it's I2C rather than pretending that it is something else? > > (and is it really still in patent after 20 years?) > > sorry rant over. > > timWell, yes, they DO have to pay Philips if they use the term "I2C" or "IIC". In exchange, Philips grants them a unique device identifier for their product. It's also a trademark. --Gene
Reply by ●December 21, 20042004-12-21
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:32:17 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@comcast.net> wrote:>In article <cq7eol$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 ●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 ●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
