In light of the recent threads regarding software licensing, where does this fit in?

frank freedman

While perusing some information regarding the I2C bus structure and its use in projects, I found this note in one of the Philips app notes from 20003, and it reads:

I2C Patent and Legal Information
The I2C bus is protected by patents held by Philips. Licensed IC manufacturers that sell devices incorporating the technology already have secured the rights to use these devices, relieving the burden from the purchaser. A license is required for implementing an I2C interface on a chip (IC, ASIC, FPGA, etc).
It is Philips's position that all chips that can talk to the I2C bus must be licensed. It does not matter how this interface is implemented. The licensed manufacturer may use its own know how, purchased IP cores, or whatever. This also applies to FPGAs. However, since the FPGAs are programmed by the user, the user is considered a company that builds an I2C-IC and would need to obtain the license from Philips.
Apply for a license or text of the Philips I2C Standard License Agreement
• US and Canadian companies: contact Mr. Piotrowski (pc.mb.svl@philips.com)
• All other companies: contact Mr. Hesselmann (pc.mb.svl@philips.com)


Now, for us garage and hobby level designers, no biggie, I doubt if they care a wit (no offense Whit) about us, but what about those doing project kits, or possibly larger projects and commercial production using the Prop chip. No, it is not technically an I2C bus at least in hardware, but the above would appear to include anyone implementing a soft I2C interface to the peripherals in their design must also apply to Philips (or NXP) for the license to utilize the same for commercial or even non-commercial purposes.

Just wondering what the consensus is out there. I believe this may be a good example of the type of awareness that Bruce had brought up in the run of one of the licensing threads......

Frank

hmm.
Halon ... check
temp alarms .... check
asbestos undies .... check

POST

Circuitsoft

I think the patents have expired since then.

I²C on Wikipedia

Wikipedia wrote:

TWI (Two Wire Interface) or TWSI (Two-Wire Serial Interface) is essentially the same bus implemented on various system-on-chip processors from Atmel and other vendors. Vendors use the name TWI, even though I²C is not a registered trademark. Trademark protection only exists for the respective logo (See upper right corner) and patents on I²C have now lapsed.

In some cases, use of the term "two-wire interface" indicates incomplete implementation of the I²C specification. Not supporting arbitration or clock stretching is one common limitation, that is still useful for a single master communicating with simple slaves that never stretch the clock.

frank freedman

Noticed some had, but can not find a definitive answer to newer "high speed" I2C patents.

FF

davejames

frank freedman wrote: »

It is Philips's position that all chips that can talk to the I2C bus must be licensed. It does not matter how this interface is implemented.

I stumbled on this statement at the rear of a Philips manual (circa 2000) a couple years ago. Later I came across another Philips manual, circa 2005-ish, that had removed the restriction on user-created I2C implementation. Unfortunately, I can't remember either manual's name. I'll dig deeper when I'm back at work next week.

Lifting the restriction is a good thing for the company where I work, as we generate the I2C bus protocol via our own methods. If the restriciton had still been in place, we would be a tempting target for Philips' legal team!

Cluso99

My understanding is that twi circumvented the patent and so philips were forced to open up i2c in an effort to prevent fragmentation.

Tor

frank freedman wrote: »

Just wondering what the consensus is out there. I believe this may be a good example of the type of awareness that Bruce had brought up in the run of one of the licensing threads......

I agree with you, and implicitly with Bruce.. we need to at least be aware of such things. Now, it was mentioned in another post that this particular patent has fortunately been dealt with in a way that removes the problem, but we don't have to look far to see another one: The FAT filesystem backlash. TomTom (and maybe others) had to remove the FAT support from their satnav devices, which had at least two visible effects:
a) They had to come out with re-designed devices that no longer had SD card support
b) Due to the above, the whole Open Software support for TomTom satnav devices basically disappeared, the device became a closed system so that even if it runs Linux there's no easy practical way to work with the device and load new/more software.

-Tor

Invent-O-Doc

Some things are best left alone in my opinion. I'd rather read about peoples' projects and questions than how the lawyers stink it all up. Look at smartphone companies how they are suing each other in every market seeking bans on competitor products rather than competing. Patents on green direction arrows and touch screen sliders are really wonderful intellectual properties (not).

I'm happy staying below the radar....

Heater.

Tor,

I don't understand:
1) Why would Tom Tom have to remove SD card support just because they cannot use FAT? There are many other file systems that can be used.
2) Given 1) above open source thing would thrive very well using an alternative file system.

Makes no sense to me.

Now, wouldn't it be cool if the Tom Tom devices came with ext3, say, for SD cards and their user instructions included the message "We are sorry to all users of Windows but the maker of your operating system does not allow us to create an easy to use interface for you, we suggest using an alternative OS". If all camera and other gadget makers did the same that would soon put and end to that nonsense, one way or another.

Heater.

Also I don't understand this:

If a hardware gizmo like I2C is patented then the method is necessarily published, in the patent, and is public information. It's published by the government so so it is actual public domain, not subject to copyright.

The above means I can write a description of it and give it to you with no strings attached. That's why we have patents.

That description could be the source code of a program that implements the gadget on your Propeller.

Ergo, there is no need for any licensing to be attached to that source code. It is a derived work of a public domain publication and copyright does not apply. Ergo, attaching an MIT license to it is not necessary and should in fact be ineffectual. In fact attaching your own license terms to a public domain work is probably even violating some section of law or other.

Of course using such source to create a program running a real Prop product would then still be a patent infringement.

Tor

Heater. wrote: »

Tor,

I don't understand:
1) Why would Tom Tom have to remove SD card support just because they cannot use FAT? There are many other file systems that can be used.

Because FAT is the standard filesystem for SD cards, that's how they are formatted when you buy them, and I don't know any vendors who sell devices where something else than FAT is used on their SD cards. The idea is presumably that it would create confusion for their customers. On satnav devices those cards are typically used to load new maps, for example, and those have to be copied there from a (Windows) PC. So, TomTom lost the case against MS (who for some reason decided to sue TomTom, while never suing anyone else before on the same matter). TomTom then (IIRC, it's been some years now) basically said ("you may have won, but we won't be paying your tax."). So maps can be loaded over bluetooth, but not via cards.

-Tor