3 ms·

I like this idea. If there's some benefactor to the Open Source community (or even if they pass along a collection) for the VID, that could even work. They just

• alcari 13y ago
  Read the article again. That's not the Forum, that's the VTM Group, which handles their marketing and legal concerns. The USB Implementers Forum itself didn't make a statement.
  • eksith 13y ago
    This idea did not sit well with VTM Group, the people serving as the management, PR, legal, and membership and licensing department of the USB Implementers Forum The hands, the mouth and collector of thoughts cannot be separated from a thing and still be called a whole. Besides even the title says, "USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source"
    • ryanthejuggler 13y ago
      The article is a second-hand source; the author could be trying to stir something up, or maybe just got a bit too excited. Who knows? The article also says the proposal, among others, "haven’t hit the desk of anyone at the USB Implementers Forum, the people who are actually in charge of designating USB VIDs and PIDs". Doesn't sound like the forum said no to me.
      • PhasmaFelis 13y ago
        What is with this bizarre argument that paid legal representation doesn't legally represent their client? By definition, unless the USB Forum directs the VTM Group to retract the C&D, it represents the Forum's position.
    • derefr 13y ago
      > The hands, the mouth and collector of thoughts cannot be separated from a thing and still be called a whole. I don't know about that. Publishing houses are certainly separate from authors, and record labels from musicians.
  • nicksdjohnson 13y ago
    It's signed "Executive Director"; regardless of their internal organisation, it's a statement from USB-IF.
  • weland 13y ago
    As far as I can understand, as with every organization in the world, when the-entity-that-represents-the-marketing-and-legal-concerns of that organization writes a cease and desist, it kind of comes from that organization. The USB IF itself didn't make a statement because they don't make statements on these matters; that's why they hired VTM Group for. Don't underestimate the USB Implementers Forum. Despite its name, it is not an organization of USB users (big and small). They have a direct interest in this matter because: a) Like every organization, they need to have some source of income. Technically, they're a non-profit organization, but they're also the one who issue the VID, and a company giving out PIDs to whoever wants them is eating their "lack of profit". b) Its members who have an interest in consumer devices/end products (i.e. companies that don't sell chips, but devices using chips) tend to be large and slow-moving. The Kickstarter crowd is pecking at their business options. (True story).
  • PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    That's a ridiculous distinction. If you hire someone to represent you, you are responsible for their words and actions on your behalf.
• buro9 13y ago
  That cease and desist request ticks the boxes for "You are committing a thought crime and are not permitted to have these ideas". Which explains why we (especially) react so strongly to it.
• spiritplumber 13y ago
  "We will be willing to settle the matter with a trial by combat."
• Someone 13y ago
  An argument I would make if I we t to court fighting that is that such squatting dilutes the 'USB' brand. Imagine a world where this 'open' approach gains market share. For the consumer, the net result easily could be that USB, which now is highly plug and play, becomes more like the way ISA cards used to be plug and play: you can plug in any device, but to make it work, you need to do some voodoo (oops, there's more than one device with that PID/VID. Please tell me what you plugged in: X, Y, Z, or something I haven't heard of?") Exaggeration? Yes, but not completely untrue, and that's the argument I would make. Whatever you do, you need some entity that prevents multiple manufacturers from using clashing identifiers. That is one of the things the owners of the standard will fight for to maintain, because it is one of the things required to make USB work as well as it does. Yes, it would be nice if they sold individual VID/PID pairs to hobbyists. But I do not see a legal reason why they would have to do so. Anti-competitive? Maybe, but they will argue that there are thousands of individual vendors in the market.
  • caf 13y ago
    The fact that it's so important to prevent multiple manufacturers from using clashing IDs is exactly why it's in their interest to make registering an "official" ID as open and accessible as possible.
  • mdwrigh2 13y ago
    > Imagine a world where this 'open' approach gains market share. For the consumer, the net result easily could be that USB, which now is highly plug and play, becomes more like the way ISA cards used to be plug and play: you can plug in any device, but to make it work, you need to do some voodoo (oops, there's more than one device with that PID/VID. Please tell me what you plugged in: X, Y, Z, or something I haven't heard of?") For the record, this already is pretty common. Lots of keyboards mimic Apple's VID/PID, and tons of controllers use absolutely nonsense VIDs/PIDs (GameStop's mobile controller line, for example).