From: "Mark Chambers" <markc@mail.com>
To: "Embedded PPC Linux list" <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:48:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00d001c4b166$04a06ea0$0301a8c0@chuck2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20041013132613.A21277@home.com
> 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.
>
> -Matt
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.
Mark C.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-13 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-13 20:18 "I2C" versus "IIC" VanBaren, Gerald (AGRE)
2004-10-13 20:26 ` Matt Porter
2004-10-13 20:48 ` Mark Chambers [this message]
2004-10-13 20:54 ` Matt Porter
2004-10-13 21:04 ` Matt Porter
2004-10-13 21:44 ` Mark Chambers
2004-10-13 21:14 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-10-13 21:18 ` Matt Porter
2004-10-13 21:19 ` Robert P. J. Day
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-13 18:26 Robert P. J. Day
2004-10-13 18:50 ` Mark Chambers
2004-10-13 18:56 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-10-13 19:10 ` annamaya
2004-10-13 19:34 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-10-13 19:40 ` Robert P. J. Day
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='00d001c4b166$04a06ea0$0301a8c0@chuck2' \
--to=markc@mail.com \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).