Subject: Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

From: Matt Porter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:04:35 -0700

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