First got to agree with the "sue them first and ask if there is any basis for it later" crowd being out of control. Huge misapplication of the law (to interoperability interface values; not code) at best and just rabid fanboy rantings at worst. As if you can copyright the strings "Apple Inc" or "1234456".
This hack is very closely similar to putting a different web browser agent string into your web browser so that some website will talk to you. There is no "invasion" of the website talking to. Microsoft isn't sue you because you posed as IE8 on the web. The string is just an interoperability string. That's it. There is no "creative expression" in a fixed , small amount of data in a specific format.
As for the above quote, the same basic rationality should have motivated Apple to block you from ripping your music off your CDs or importing music from any other source than the "got to pay us" iTunes store. Why didn't Apple do that? It would drive more sales right? Those el-cheapo record companies should come up with their own redundant programs to rip music from the CDROMs <cough>. Never mind, that you had already bought the music (or in this case, the player). Nor the colossal waste of reinventing the wheel.
Palm's solution works for DRM free music. All of the DRM music requires as iPod anyway (it is still locked under FairPlay on the iPod). For folks who over the recent years acquired a ton of FairPlay only DRM music; the solution is a "no go". So primarily what Apple would be doing is going out it is way to make unconvienent for *YOU* , the users who bought the music that can be played through multiple devices, from playing the music with multiple devices. Could luck to Apple if that goes to antitrust trial along with some more deeper issues..
When iTunes was young there was alot of DRM-free music (many folks ripping their CDs). For last couple of years that changed to mostly DRM music for those building new collections. Now the pendulum is swinging back to DRM-free. iTunes needs to evolve back into that direction again.
Apple could close its eyes as to where things are going but would just ignoring the competition; not meeting it head on.
If tying iPods to iTunes to the Store was critical profitability why did apple drop the DRM? That pretty much guaranteed had to use that chain to get to your music.
Likewise apple gives away Quicktime player (QTP) for free. Shouldn't Apple restrict everything that your can play through QTP to stuff they require you buy off the store?
Safari browser..... holy mackerel... better make all those web browser users go through some "for pay" site at Apple to indirectly pay for it otherwise Apple's bottom line is doomed , doomed , doomed.