Considering Palm hasn't used any of Apples software, your comment is pointgless.
True.
The Vendor ID is not Apples IP. It's usage is granted to them by the USB CO.
Arguable. Apple has the right to use that Vendor ID, Palm does not. Whether that makes it "Apple's IP" or not is debatable, but it has the same end effect.
Apple is guilty of using the USB protocol as a method of restricting device access to iTunes. This is in violation of the USB CO terms of use.
Apple is using the USB IDs (Vendor, Device, etc.) to determine whether a given device is supported by iTunes. That is *exactly* the point of the USB IDs.
Palm is guilty of improper use of a Vendor ID. This is in violation of the USB CO terms of use.
Explicitly in the USB CO contract even.
Palm's original solution did not violate the Vendor ID usage as they simply used a generic device ID and called it ipod and while it may be a nice trick, it's not a violation of USB standards. It was Apple's update to iTunes that made the Vendor ID a requirement.
This forced Palm to go the Vendor ID route to re-enable iTunes access.
While Palm's original 'solution' idn't violate the Vendor ID usage, it *did* violate the *Device ID* usage by claiming to be an iPod (That's another USB ID Apple has exclusive rights to). Apple updated iTunes to pay attention to the Vendor ID as well, since Apple is under no obligation to provide and maintain Palm's sync solution for them. The next step will likely be Apple having iTunes pay attention to the Manufacturer ID as well.
Remember, Apple provides the Sync Services API and an XML interface which allows developers to read the iTunes Library (including songs, videos, podcasts, playlists, etc). Using that information, Palm can (and should) write their own syncing software. Instead, Palm is trying to force Apple to provide a sync solution for Palm's product. This would require that Apple can no longer make updates to the iPod sync protocol without essentially getting permission from Palm first. Palm isn't even *trying* to pay Apple for that privilege.
Palm seems to want Apple to provide and support syncing to/from Palm's device so *they* don't have to deal with it themselves. Apple wants Palm to provide and support syncing to/from Palm's device so they don't have to deal with it themselves. Apple is more than willing to *enable* it (through the provided interfaces), they just don't want to get stuck *supporting* it.
There's really no way to paint Palm in a good light with the facts at hand without trying to make the argument that Apple should be directly responsible for writing software to sync any arbitrary device that gets plugged into the computer, whether they have any information on that device or not. (Seriously, what do you think the odds are that Palm provided full specs on the Pre to Apple, or even just specs for the Pre's sync procedure?) That demand is akin to me seeing that you can afford to buy a car, and then demanding that you buy me one as well, then when you say no, pretending to be you so I can buy one on your dime.