| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The ins and outs of USB (IBM developerWorks)The ins and outs of USB (IBM developerWorks)Posted Apr 29, 2005 18:11 UTC (Fri) by jwb (guest, #15467)In reply to: The ins and outs of USB (IBM developerWorks) by kakareka Parent article: The ins and outs of USB (IBM developerWorks)
The premise of your post is incorrect. Apple never did and never could charge royalties on the use or implementation of the IEEE 1394 bus. What it proposed was to charge royalties on their trademarks, the FireWire name and logo. I believe the proposed charge was $1 per device.
(Log in to post comments)
The ins and outs of USB (IBM developerWorks) Posted Apr 29, 2005 18:42 UTC (Fri) by kakareka (subscriber, #5204) [Link] Doing a quick google search does seem to confirm it was a patent issue, not a trademark one. Apple does own patents on the technology, and you can have patents (and charge royalties) on technology included in IEEE standards. Appears other companies claimed patents as well, and forced Apple to agree to cross license, which is what I believe usually happens with IEEE (and other organizations) standards anyway.
The ins and outs of USB (IBM developerWorks) Posted Apr 29, 2005 18:51 UTC (Fri) by maxmtl2002 (guest, #3990) [Link] For the 1394 licensing thing:
Referred from one of the main 1394 site:
Looks like the patents cost are US$ 0.25 for each device. I do not know about its historic values.
|
|
||||||||||||