Username or EmailPassword
"So as long as Palm doesn't care that it's officially USB compliant, they could unilaterally withdraw from its obligations under that contract, which I believe they would be able to do in a completely ethical way. "
Palm has itself a vendor ID, so it has to agree with this (from the vendor ID form):
The company set forth above hereby applies for a USB Vendor ID Number and agrees to the following: The USB Implementers Forum is the authority which assigns and maintains all USB Vendor ID Numbers. Each Vendor ID Number is assigned to one company for its sole and exclusive use, along with associated Product ID Numbers. They may not be sold, transferred, or used by others, directly or indirectly, except in special circumstances and then only upon prior written approval by USB-IF. Unauthorized use of assigned or unassigned USB Vendor ID Numbers and associated Product ID Numbers are strictly prohibited.
"But I do agree with you 100% that Apple has reached the point where their iTunes and iPod market share have qualified them as a bona fide monopoly, and that therefore their competitors qualify for some consideration and protection under anti-trust law."
You don't understand what you are talking about, do you understand what anti-trust means, i don't think so,
Find me one only time when Apple has tried to restrict competition against iTunes, it simply does not exists.... Apple monopoly exists because no competitor could come up with a credible alternative, period. Again, i call it natural monopoly. Edited 2009-07-25 05:29 UTC