"Gabor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> On Jul 24, 9:39 am, John_H <newsgr...@johnhandwork.com> wrote:
>> devices wrote:
>> > "Jim Granville" <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:46a51c8d$[email protected]..
>>
>> >> Serial EE proms, have chosen a polling system for their 'wait'
>> >> requirements.
>>
>> >> -jg
>>
>> > Yeah, i notice the Ack polling in Microchip's seeproms.
>>
>> > By the way, are royalties still due to Philips? Or have the copyrights
>> > expired. Just curious, i read something about it time ago.
>>
>> > bye, Jim
>>
>> If you limit yourself to 400 kHz and 10 bit addressing, no royalties.
>> Our company contacted the Philips legal folks a couple years ago to
>> clear it up for ourselves.
>
>
> Do you mean no more than 400 KHz and no more than 10 bits? Or
> should there be royalties for 100 KHz and 7 bit addressing?
> The last time I talked with Philips they said it was okay to
> use I2C if there were Philips chips on the bus. In our case
> this is generally true.

There are I2C implementations that exceed 400 kHz (1.6 MHz?) and/or have
greater than 10-bit addressing. It's these items which are still covered by
Philips patents. 100 kHz and 7 bit is fine according to what we got
directly from the patent holders.