why not just say I2C?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View

I am currently working with a range of peripherals whos
control lines look remarkably like an I2C interface.

The data sheets go into great detail about how the data and
clock line are used to communicate with the device and how
it has an own 'address' so that you can differentiate it from
other devices etc.......

Why not just say that it's an I2C comptable device FFS.

Do they have to pay Philips some extra money for admitting
that it's I2C rather than pretending that it is something else?

(and is it really still in patent after 20 years?)

sorry rant over.

tim





Re: why not just say I2C?
Just call it SPI like everybody else. It's probably more of a trademark
than a patent issue in the same way you can't call your latest vacuum
cleaner a Hoover.
Peter


Re: why not just say I2C?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Because I2C and SPI aren't very similar at all?

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I'LL get it!! It's
                                  at               probably a FEW of my
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: why not just say I2C?
SPI is not I2C. SPI is to "three-wire interface" as I2C is to "two wire
interface". Or to put it another way, SPI is to Motorola as I2C is to
Philips.

Also, note that "I2C-like" peripherals are in no way guaranteed to be
FULLY I2C compatible.


Re: why not just say I2C?
On 20 Dec 2004 13:22:36 -0800, the renowned "peterk"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think you mean "two wire".


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: why not just say I2C?
Oops, of course you are right, it's TWI. I should put my brain into
gear before writing.
Peter


Re: why not just say I2C?
520010973502.removethis@t-online.de says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, yes, they DO have to pay Philips if they use the term "I2C" or
"IIC".
In exchange, Philips grants them a unique device identifier for their
product.

It's also a trademark.

--Gene

Re: why not just say I2C?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Not always - only if it is a new type of device - e.g. all eeproms have the same
address prefix.


Re: why not just say I2C?
Last I heard, I2C was a registered trademark and you had to pay Philips
for using it. There's a lot of these shenanegans being played -
OneWire, SPI, I2C etc. I think that manufacturers have tried to play by
the rules and still let you know what they mean - Atmel uses the TWI -
Two wire interface that can be used with I2C

But you're right - it is annoying

Tom

tim wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: why not just say I2C?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, you should ask Philips to adopt the TWI
so we can have one standard :-)

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson   ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: why not just say I2C?


stupid me for posting the day before I went on my Xmas leave but...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah ha, so the name is trademarked and you have to pay Philips to
use it, but the invention is (probably) out of patent so you are
free to use it in a design if you don't say so.

Ta

tim




Site Timeline