On Jul 24, 6:02 pm, "John_H" <newsgr...@johnhandwork.com> wrote:
> "Gabor" <ga...@alacron.com> 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.


O.K. I went to NXP.com and found a link to this page:

http://www.semiconductors.philips.co...ing/index.html

which pretty much says they're not charging royalties for licenses
although it doesn't go so far as to say you don't need a license...

There's no mention of high-speed I2C licensing. Is this under a
different patent holder (i.e. not Philips)?