Bill,

I wholeheartedly agree on every point.  But I still think the lawyers are
more greedy than stupid...  which I suppose is pretty stupid in the long
run anyway, so I guess I agree on that point too!

Dale

On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, William Chops Westfield wrote:

>     > Stupid lawyers.
>
> In this case, I meant Philips' I2C lawyers specifically.
>
> 1) It appears to me that I2C would have been much better off as "freebie"
>    intellectual property, like ethernet (to pick a particularly successful
>    example), even supposing that you thing the I2C protocol should have
>    been patentable in the first place.
>
> 2) They didn't, and apparently the terms of the license are so onerous
>    that hardly anyone actually licenses the protocol from the, and doesn't
>    use the name, resulting in no revenue for them and confusion for
>    engineers everywhere.
>
> 3) It appears that it is possible to get away with this.
>
>
>     Distasteful, yes.  Stupid, no.  They make money no matter what.
>     Who cares if it sets mankind back a hundred years?
>
> Me, for one.  I'll include in my definition of "stupid" actions which are
> detrimental on a large scale even if there is short term individual gain.
> In this case, I think Philips (including their employed lawyers) would have
> been better off if the legalities surrounding I2C had been different.
>
> BillW
>

---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
                -- Isaac Asimov