At 04:18 PM 3/26/00 +0100, you wrote:
>My reaction would be that it is up to them to prove the devices are using
I2C.
>If there are known I2C devices in the circuit such as eeproms, then by using
>them I have bought the implied license, even if interfaced to a
"non-licensed"
>device such as a PIC, where I have written a bit-banging program to do the
>interface. If there are no known I2C devices in the circuit, the protocol
is my
>trade secret, until they can prove I have based it on I2C.

In practical terms, it probably means that you shouldn't advertise your
device as being I2C unless it's licensed as such from Philips.

So, if you use a _PIC_ to make a module that has an I2C interface, you
might be taking a risk advertising it as I2C (assuming Microchip is *not*
paying royalties to Philips), "2-wire" might be more prudent.

BTW, does anyone know if there is an official logo or graphic image
for products that the I2C standard?

Best regards,


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Spehro Pefhany                                    "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com
Fax:(905) 271-9838                      (small micro system devt hw/sw + mfg)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=