I have the pdf format of the data book for a 24LC32 chip, which says the device is a \"2-wire serial interface bus, I2C (tm) compatible\" No where in the document does it mention Phillips or Signetics at all. And where can I find the license agreement in order to read it? Is it the I2C SPECIFICATION pdf on phillips website? Well thats what im gonna have a look at now, if its the wrong thing someone let me know ; ) Rob On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:59:50 +0100 Arthur Brown wrote: >The Inter-IC (I2C) bus is a two-wire serial interface developed by >Phillips/Signetics[tm]. MicroChip have stated this in all thier data books. >The licence for these devices are simple i.e. you use the product so you buy >the licence. before you go on have you read the licence it is very open. I >will not repeat it all but the end result is any part bought by you is >licenced.... the cost is included in the price you payed... bit like buying >a pc with Windows thrown in i.e. pre installed, then going over to linux or >some other os. and expecting bill gates to refund the cost of windows? >but then in the end Phillips do own the rights to i2C so why not except the >fact. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Rob R >To: >Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 7:57 PM >Subject: Re: I2C COPYRIGHTS??? > > >| Ok let me simplify my situation a little bit..I am using a 24LC32 serial >eeprom from microchip. Now, isnt that an I2C 2wire bus device? If so, the >code I am using to read and write to the eeprom I of course have written >myself, I am using a 16F84, so i would not have to obtain a license to >distribute my product correct? >| >| Now if the 24LC32 is not an I2C device they coulda fooled me. In that >case phillips dont exist in this ; ) and how does one get away with that? >By calling it a serial eeprom instead of an I2C eeprom or some kind of legal >trickery. Like Vanella Ice claiming he had 1 more beat added in his song, >so technically he did not steal the Queen song..im sure. >| >| Rob >| >| On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:09:08 -0500 Spehro Pefhany >wrote: >| >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) >| >>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >-= >| > >| >| Send someone a cool Dynamitemail flashcard greeting!! And get rewarded. >| GO AHEAD! http://cards.dynamitemail.com/index.php3?rid=fc-41 >| > Send someone a cool Dynamitemail flashcard greeting!! And get rewarded. GO AHEAD! http://cards.dynamitemail.com/index.php3?rid=fc-41