Palm Reports Apple to USB Compliance Organization Over iTunes Syncing Issues

[revbarabbas]

What you're still not getting, is we DO NOT HAVE TO ASK that voluntary group for an id.

For the nth time, it's V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y. Heck, you yourself can use "Palm" or "Apple" if you wish.

Ever used a GUID in your programming? Is it legally required that you make it unique? Of course not. But it's usually a good idea. And if you joined a "GUID Club", you might even pay for a GUID of your own. But it wouldn't bind anyone else outside that group.

Same thing here. You can put any name you want there... unless you did sign an agreement with the USB IF group, and then you're not supposed to use other voluntarily registered ids, or else get thrown out of the group.

It's kind of like all those companies that you can pay to name your own star

For that matter, YOU could start your own USB group, and sell ids and logos, as long as the logos don't look like the other group's.

The real discussion should only be over how lazy Palm is, to piggyback. And how short-sighted, knowing that Apple will keep changing iTunes.

Ok Ok Ok...you made your point...I just investigated the Palm Pre, and nowhere on it's box or any of it's products does the USB logo exist anymore. So by that logic they must not be a member of the USB-IF otherwise they would use the logo to their commercial advantage...the cord I had seen was apparently a third party cable not included in the box. I apologize I was mistakenly mislead. Looks like Palm really covered their bases on any legal action that could be taken against them short of a civil suit from Apple for dilution of intellectual property for the spoof...but that would be a hard case to win so I think that Apple will just let by-gones be by-gones...one has to wonder what Palm will get out of complaining to the USB-IF they aren't even a member of. The USB-IF was probably like..."we should listen to you why?"

 

[DMann]

Microsoft abused their monopoly. Apple is neither abusive nor a monopoly in the markets applicable to this issue with Palm.



Only video, audiobooks, and applications still have DRM on iTunes.



Step 1: Install Palm syncing software.
Step 2: Sync.

How is that "dealbreakingly cumbersome"?



I think this statement sums everything up! Having a competitive advantage is not anti-competitive. It is competing better.



Again, the fact that IE was preinstalled was not a problem. It was Microsoft's interference with its competition.



The browser ballot proposed for Windows 7 is a result of the market power that Microsoft has achieved in the browser market as a result of their past abuse of their Windows OS monopoly.

The EU is trying to reverse their ill-begotten gains.

This is the most salient point.

 

[DougB541]

There are a lot of E-lawyers up in this thread.

 

[Mac4Brains]

Apple should just buyout Palm

Apple should just buyout Palm and get it over with

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple should just buyout Palm and get it over with

And what would Apple get for their $2 Billion?

 

[Mac4Brains]

And what would Apple get for their $2 Billion?

One: to be rid of the Palm as a competitor.
Two: To gain a new iPhone model different then the current model.
Three: Steve jobs can ratify the biggest mistake in his career (The Newton)
Four: Current owners of the Pre have less hassle.
Five: to gain the ability of running several apps at the same time
Six: To intertwine Palm apps with the iPhone apps in the apps store
Seven: extended compatibility of apps
Eight: Increased market share
Nine: a whole new developer/R&D group with a fresh prospective
Ten: getting into other markets and countries that Apple has not tapped yet

Always remember that your adversary can be your ally if you find a way to make them trustworthy. Signing there paychecks is a good start.

 

[BaldiMac]

One: to be rid of the Palm as a competitor.

Okay??

Two: To gain a new iPhone model different then the current model.

Do you really think Apple would sell WebOS devices?

Three: Steve jobs can ratify the biggest mistake in his career (The Newton)

Steve Jobs did not develop the Newton.

Four: Current owners of the Pre have less hassle.

How does that benefit Apple?

Five: to gain the ability of running several apps at the same time

Apple has no technical problems with allowing background apps on an iPhone. They currently allow their own apps to do so now. They choose to disallow them for "user experience" reasons.

Six: To intertwine Palm apps with the iPhone apps in the apps store

Why? They would not run on the iPhone.

Seven: extended compatibility of apps

Compatibility with what?

Eight: Increased market share

Again, do you really think Apple would sell Palm products?

Nine: a whole new developer/R&D group with a fresh prospective

Mac4Brains this is Apple. Apple this is Mac4Brains. You obviously have never met.

Ten: getting into other markets and countries that Apple has not tapped yet

What is preventing Apple from getting into these other markets and countries without buying Palm?

Always remember that your adversary can be your ally if you find a way to make them trustworthy. Signing there paychecks is a good start.

I'd be Apple's friend for $2 billion. Don't know if that would be worth it to them though!

 

[NeoCrusader]

Actually World War 5, the situation is so bad we're skipping 3 and 4.






totally bad joke I know, but I saw it on a tv show not to long ago and I for some reason just remembered.

Actually, I was laughing my ass off lol Good one!

 

[kdarling]

Apple should just buyout Palm and get it over with
... snip ...
Nine: a whole new developer/R&D group with a fresh prospective.

Apple already had some of Palm's R&D group

They left to work on the Pre.

Palm either let them do more of their thing, or paid them more. Most likely, both.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple already had some of Palm's R&D group

They left to work on the Pre.

Palm either let them do more of their thing, or paid them more. Most likely, both.

Or didn't have them shared sh#tless that the CEO might drop by to see how things were going....

Jobs can be Apple's worst enemy at times.

 

[charlituna]

Could Apple simply license the code to sync with iTunes to other phone and music player manufacturers ?

suppose but they really don't want to. they want itunes to only sync with their stuff.

however to compromise they use XML as the format for the library info. instead of pulling a move like iphoto or iweb where things are sealed off.

so all anyone has to do is write a program to read the XML file. which Palm was too lazy to do.

It proves nothing. Are you an engineer? Have you programmed USB devices?

I don't need anyone's permission to put in a "Vendor Id" of my choice. Heck, I put anything I wish in there, including "Palm" or "Apple". There's no "law" forcing me to not use those. Only customer pressure and necessary drivers.

forget bandying legal and illegal around. there isn't a law per se but there is etiquette of a sorts.

Palm is going to the USB-IF, having broken one of their rules (by spoofing) and expects Apple to get a slap on the wrist for allegedly writing an update that blocks the Palm. how could Apple do this. well two ways. one -- Palm has an id and Apple wrote a code that says "if you see this id, ignore the device' which is basically what Palm is allegedly and is against the rules of the USB-IF. or Two, to ensure that all ipods sync, they put in a code that says 'all devices with this vendor id should sync' and Palm apparently (if you believe the screenshots) identified the palm with that code to make it work with itunes. which is against the USB-IF code of conduct

so now, without proof that they were pointingly shut out, Palm which has broken the rules of conduct expects the USB-IF to slap Apple on the wrist for not playing nicely. but they haven't either it seems. which is why the USB-IF should laugh Palm out of the room.

 

[DMann]

Or didn't have them shared sh#tless that the CEO might drop by to see how things were going....

Jobs can be Apple's worst enemy at times.

Perhaps you meant - both Apple and Palm have shared sh#tless.(JR)

 

[gnasher729]

Ok Ok Ok...you made your point...I just investigated the Palm Pre, and nowhere on it's box or any of it's products does the USB logo exist anymore. So by that logic they must not be a member of the USB-IF otherwise they would use the logo to their commercial advantage...the cord I had seen was apparently a third party cable not included in the box. I apologize I was mistakenly mislead. Looks like Palm really covered their bases on any legal action that could be taken against them short of a civil suit from Apple for dilution of intellectual property for the spoof...but that would be a hard case to win so I think that Apple will just let by-gones be by-gones...one has to wonder what Palm will get out of complaining to the USB-IF they aren't even a member of. The USB-IF was probably like..."we should listen to you why?"

USB is covered by I-don't-know-how-many patents. When you pay for the USB license, you got the right to use all these patents. If not, you have to negotiate with every single patent holder. Good luck.

This whole matter is pointless anyway, because Palm wouldn't be complaining if they weren't a member of the club. Because they're in the club, they aren't allowed to claim their device is an iPod, so they lose. If they weren't in the club, then they could claim their device is an iPod, but then Apple has the right to lock them out.

Basically, Apple has the right to lock out any device that doesn't have a USB license (you wouldn't want to use devices that suddenly start pushing 240 Volt through your USB connector, and without a USB license you have no idea what could happen), and they have the right to lock out any device that violates its USB license (which would be for example a device that claims to be an iPod but isn't made by Apple or HP).

 

[Magnets]

I wonder...

I wonder what would happen if iTunes was told that any device connected that reports:
"Product Identification" = "iPod"
"Vendor Identification" = "Apple"
etc...
requires a firmware update that changes routine XYZ to XYYZ, that on legitimate Apple hardware causes a small, insignificant change, but on other "untested" hardware may cause a reboot loop, or some other issue that renders it unusable - who would be liable for the damage? The company that created the software designed to run on it's own hardware, or the company that used unauthorised identification labels to pretend it was someone elses hardware?