Hacker News Reader

Comment by eksith | Hacker News Reader

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 need to properly implement the standard and the VID can effectively be the Hoover or Kleenex of VIDs.

Edit: On second thought (after I actually read it), this bit...

  Please immediately cease and desist raising funds to purchase a 
  unique USB VID for the purpose of transferring, reselling or 
  sublicensing PIDs and delete all references to the USB-IF, VIDs and 
  PIDs for transfer, resale or sublicense from your website and other 
  marketing materials.

...rubs me the wrong way on so many levels, I'm tempted to say, the hell with the forum.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

> 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).

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.

  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"

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.

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.

> 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.

It's signed "Executive Director"; regardless of their internal organisation, it's a statement from USB-IF.

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).

That's a ridiculous distinction. If you hire someone to represent you, you are responsible for their words and actions on your behalf.

"We will be willing to settle the matter with a trial by combat."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com