|
|
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > HP and Palm general discussion > Lawsuits, Lawsuits, Lawsuits
1 2 3
I was reading some articles online and i came across a few.....not so good ones. Apparently some people are suing palm for their loss of data and that they dont have a reliable backup system put into place (oops)
-Maybe this will get them to speed up creating a better backup solution.
Palm Pre User Sues, Alleging Data Loss - PC World
Also Apparently Palm never got permission to use the PDF viewer that we have on the pre and is getting sued by the company that developed it for not paying the price to use it. (another oops)
Palm Sued by Artifex - Analyst Blog | Benzinga.com
Palm Hit WIth Lawsuit Over Pre Document Handling | HULIQ
Im just wondering how this is going to affect the company. I know Palm doesnt have huge deep pockets full of cash....so i wonder how these suits (if they have to pay money for "damages") is going to affect their business.
Another question i have is why would palm do something like not get a permission to use a piece of software? i know they prolly wanted to save money and all, but just getting sued for doing something wrong like this is obvious bad PR.
-Maybe this will get them to speed up creating a better backup solution.
Palm Pre User Sues, Alleging Data Loss - PC World
Also Apparently Palm never got permission to use the PDF viewer that we have on the pre and is getting sued by the company that developed it for not paying the price to use it. (another oops)
Palm Sued by Artifex - Analyst Blog | Benzinga.com
Palm Hit WIth Lawsuit Over Pre Document Handling | HULIQ
Im just wondering how this is going to affect the company. I know Palm doesnt have huge deep pockets full of cash....so i wonder how these suits (if they have to pay money for "damages") is going to affect their business.
Another question i have is why would palm do something like not get a permission to use a piece of software? i know they prolly wanted to save money and all, but just getting sued for doing something wrong like this is obvious bad PR.
Technically iTunes sync was unauthorized too. They're lucky all Apple does is keep changing the coding in iTunes.
P.S. So maybe "technically" they can't get sued, but the way Palm keeps going about this is sneaky and underhanded to me. I do wonder if Apple could go further than just changing the coding, since Palm has already said it's willing to keep defying Apple's wishes about it own software use. It's pretty cheeky to basically say "we're going to keep forcing our product to sync with your software, which was not meant for us, whether you like it or not.".
P.S. So maybe "technically" they can't get sued, but the way Palm keeps going about this is sneaky and underhanded to me. I do wonder if Apple could go further than just changing the coding, since Palm has already said it's willing to keep defying Apple's wishes about it own software use. It's pretty cheeky to basically say "we're going to keep forcing our product to sync with your software, which was not meant for us, whether you like it or not.".
Open Source Software rights is a very murky issue. Palm may have thought they were acting properly, and who knows, maybe they were.
its the nature of these people they want something for nothing . theres no room for forgiveness in their mind at all. and ultimately it will cause their downfall . imo.
In the states, if you sue someone and lose you don't have to pay for your lawyer I believe. In Canada, you still have to pay even if you lose your case. Because of this, people sue for a lot more in the USA I heard.
Originally Posted by dabro:
Open Source Software rights is a very murky issue. Palm may have thought they were acting properly, and who knows, maybe they were.
Unless you know someplace where the "modified" muPDF source code can be publicly accessed from Palm, they are in violation of the GPL.Open Source Software rights is a very murky issue. Palm may have thought they were acting properly, and who knows, maybe they were.
Originally Posted by Kupe:
Unless you know someplace where the "modified" muPDF source code can be publicly accessed from Palm, they are in violation of the GPL.
Would simply releasing the code make this suit moot, or would they have a claim for the time period in which the code was unavailable? I say they just open it up....I've never actually used that viewer anyway...maybe someone else can come along and make it better (ahem Remix Unless you know someplace where the "modified" muPDF source code can be publicly accessed from Palm, they are in violation of the GPL.
I'll join one if I can get a free Touchstone as a result. LOL
That's an article from April 1st 2009...
Palm had been around along time, trust me they own a lot of patents too. Remember Apple was trying as hard as they could to threaten them before the Pre was even released, that didn't go very far either!! Everybody's trying to eat out of other peoples plate this day and age.
Originally Posted by The Phone Diva:
Technically iTunes sync was unauthorized too. They're lucky all Apple does is keep changing the coding in iTunes.
It's a shame that someone with such a long history here would be so uneducated. There's in nothing illegal nor infringing about the method Palm uses to provide iTunes sync. No patents, no IP, no law. If Apple really had a legal leg to stand on, don't you think they would use it?Technically iTunes sync was unauthorized too. They're lucky all Apple does is keep changing the coding in iTunes.
And the thing with muPDF could easily be rectified if Palm would release their changes to the muPDF source. This sort of oversight happens a lot when large companies get involved with open source, and rarely indicates foul intentions. I remember ASUS ran afoul of the GPL with the original Eee PC's because of the same thing. They released their modifications and everyone was happy.
Originally Posted by Syphon:
That's an article from April 1st 2009...
It's seemingly only a matter of time before a deal is finalized. So I say again, although Palm may not have deep pockets, Nokia does. That's an article from April 1st 2009...
One can/would assume that any litigation involving the relatively recent released Palm Pre would not be resolved prior to this essentially eminent acquisition.
Originally Posted by dallashigh:
It's a shame that someone with such a long history here would be so uneducated. There's in nothing illegal nor infringing about the method Palm uses to provide iTunes sync. No patents, no IP, no law. If Apple really had a legal leg to stand on, don't you think they would use it?
And the thing with muPDF could easily be rectified if Palm would release their changes to the muPDF source. This sort of oversight happens a lot when large companies get involved with open source, and rarely indicates foul intentions. I remember ASUS ran afoul of the GPL with the original Eee PC's because of the same thing. They released their modifications and everyone was happy.
Nothing infringing?? iTunes belongs to Apple and Apple products. And apparently Apple does not want the Pre syncing with iTunes, otherwise they wouldn't keep trying to boot it. I did also read something about Palm using some fuzzy logic as to why they should be allowed to sync to iTunes and the arbitrator didn't buy it. I'll try to find that info for you.It's a shame that someone with such a long history here would be so uneducated. There's in nothing illegal nor infringing about the method Palm uses to provide iTunes sync. No patents, no IP, no law. If Apple really had a legal leg to stand on, don't you think they would use it?
And the thing with muPDF could easily be rectified if Palm would release their changes to the muPDF source. This sort of oversight happens a lot when large companies get involved with open source, and rarely indicates foul intentions. I remember ASUS ran afoul of the GPL with the original Eee PC's because of the same thing. They released their modifications and everyone was happy.
Here's one article for you, dallashigh.
USB Group Calls Foul on Palm Pre iTunes Sync - PC World
Using Apple's vendor ID for one method, yeah that sounds really ethical.
I did read other articles about this, but I need to find them.
P.S. Found another. These are not the articles I read, but they say basically the same things I read before, Palm is on shaky ground using iTunes sync.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/17246...ml?tk=rel_news
"Uneducated" or not, I know what I read.
USB Group Calls Foul on Palm Pre iTunes Sync - PC World
Using Apple's vendor ID for one method, yeah that sounds really ethical.
I did read other articles about this, but I need to find them.
P.S. Found another. These are not the articles I read, but they say basically the same things I read before, Palm is on shaky ground using iTunes sync.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/17246...ml?tk=rel_news
"Uneducated" or not, I know what I read.
Originally Posted by The Phone Diva:
Nothing infringing?? iTunes belongs to Apple and Apple products. And apparently Apple does not want the Pre syncing with iTunes, otherwise they wouldn't keep trying to boot it. I did also read something about Palm using some fuzzy logic as to why they should be allowed to sync to iTunes and the arbitrator didn't buy it. I'll try to find that info for you.
When Apple changed the way the iPhone/iPod identifies itself to the iTunes software they were doing the only thing they could do to prevent the Pre from syncing, because they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. What Palm did didn't circumvent any copy protection or alter Apples software and was in no way a violation of the DMCA. The arbitration you refer to was conducted with the USB governing body, not any legal body. Literally the only penalty this body could levy was to make Palm remove the USB logo from their products and literature.Nothing infringing?? iTunes belongs to Apple and Apple products. And apparently Apple does not want the Pre syncing with iTunes, otherwise they wouldn't keep trying to boot it. I did also read something about Palm using some fuzzy logic as to why they should be allowed to sync to iTunes and the arbitrator didn't buy it. I'll try to find that info for you.
I have many complaints against Apple, but I do think that Apple has the right to make sure IT'S software for IT'S products stays that way. Having to trick the software into accepting something unauthorized may be "legal" but it isn't ethical, especially when Apple has made it clear it does not want anything but Apple products syncing with iTunes. People may not agree with this, but it is Apple's right AFAIC.
Sure it would benefit Apple to open up it's software, but apparently they don't see it that way.
Sure it would benefit Apple to open up it's software, but apparently they don't see it that way.
Originally Posted by Kupe:
Unless you know someplace where the "modified" muPDF source code can be publicly accessed from Palm, they are in violation of the GPL.
Right on Palm's own website: Welcome to opensource.palm.com - PalmUnless you know someplace where the "modified" muPDF source code can be publicly accessed from Palm, they are in violation of the GPL.
Per the GPL, here's the original source: http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensourc.../mupdf-1.0.tar
And here's Palm's modifications: http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensourc...ar-patches.tgz
From what I can gather, the major argument is that since Palm did not get a comercial lisence from Artifex, Palm is required to release all "derivitave works" under the GPL. This premise is based on the GPLv3, which current versions of muPDF are lisenced under (GPLv3 allows the developers to tack on extra restrictions to the license, such as the idea of commercial licenses in special circumstances). The "derivative works" created by Palm were not released under the GPL.
However, Palm is using a much older version of muPDF, from March 2008, that is licensed under GPLv2. There are no requirements for commercial licenses. From what I can see, Palm has already followed all the requirements of the GPLv2.
Originally Posted by The Phone Diva:
I have many complaints against Apple, but I do think that Apple has the right to make sure IT'S software for IT'S products stays that way. Having to trick the software into accepting something unauthorized may be "legal" but it isn't ethical, especially when Apple has made it clear it does not want anything but Apple products syncing with iTunes. People may not agree with this, but it is Apple's right AFAIC.
Sure it would benefit Apple to open up it's software, but apparently they don't see it that way.
Wonder how loud Apple would be screaming if other companies refused any ties to apple products. iTunes runs on windows what if microsoft kept breaking it from working on windows products.I have many complaints against Apple, but I do think that Apple has the right to make sure IT'S software for IT'S products stays that way. Having to trick the software into accepting something unauthorized may be "legal" but it isn't ethical, especially when Apple has made it clear it does not want anything but Apple products syncing with iTunes. People may not agree with this, but it is Apple's right AFAIC.
Sure it would benefit Apple to open up it's software, but apparently they don't see it that way.
iTunes is already broken on Windows, LOL!
MSFT actively doing that would be causing anti-trust complaints again, against their OS. Apple is simply rejecting fake vendor IDs, which it should do AFAIC. Palm comes in and squats on iTunes with a fake ID, they should expect to get booted off.
1
2 3
MSFT actively doing that would be causing anti-trust complaints again, against their OS. Apple is simply rejecting fake vendor IDs, which it should do AFAIC. Palm comes in and squats on iTunes with a fake ID, they should expect to get booted off.
webOS Nation Forums > Other Forums > HP and Palm general discussion > Lawsuits, Lawsuits, Lawsuits
