Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#61

Post by noselasd »

jrockway wrote: post #2

Why not just pick a VID and start using it? USB is so well understood at this point that there is no need for anyone to play ball with an "official" organization. (Whoever gets "officially" issued that VID is going to whine when they notice it's already being used for hobbyist purposes anyway, which means that the technique of just picking one will guarantee uniqueness.)

Or (as long as it's an opensource project), just go get a PID for your gadget under the openmoko vid, http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/USB_Product_IDs

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#62

Post by weland »

JonFish85 wrote: post #53
Pxtl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how many cheap Chinese knock-offs out there seem to go unpunished, I don't think the USB folks are really successful at enforcement.

Anecdote: apparently going after Chinese knock-off companies is a gigantic PITA. I've worked with those who have tried going after them. File a complaint about company ACBD. A week later, company ABCD never existed, but company XYZ is operating at the same factory. Amazing!

I can wholeheartedly confirm this. The cheap Chinese knock-off companies are basically beyond the reach of Western law.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#63

Post by marcosdumay »

nraynaud wrote: post #58
Sanddancer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A proper ID makes it much easier for the consumers. By having a proper ID, the OS can search its database of drivers, and if that fails, try to download from a source such as Windows Update. Also, a lot of this could very well be trying to avoid the pain of the Bad Old Days of pre-plug and play DOS, where you had to manually set things like interrupts and I/O ports, and hope and pray that your new device didn't confl…

I always found so stupid they just don't put a bit of flash and the drivers in it. Or just an URL in the device descriptor.

Wow. If you tought a memory stick pretending that it's a keyboard was a serious enough problem, just wait untill somebody thinks loading random drivers from the device (or the web!) is a good idea.

It will happen, that's a near certainty. Some day, somebody will think that's a good idea, and since it's easy, the scheme will get widely used.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#64

Post by Someone »

eksith wrote: post #3
jrockway wrote: post #2

Why not just pick a VID and start using it? USB is so well understood at this point that there is no need for anyone to play ball with an "official" organization. (Whoever gets "officially" issued that VID is going to whine when they notice it's already being used for hobbyist purposes anyway, which means that the technique of just picking one will guarantee uniqueness.)

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 purpos…

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.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#65

Post by nraynaud »

marcosdumay wrote: post #63
nraynaud wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always found so stupid they just don't put a bit of flash and the drivers in it. Or just an URL in the device descriptor.

Wow. If you tought a memory stick pretending that it's a keyboard was a serious enough problem, just wait untill somebody thinks loading random drivers from the device (or the web!) is a good idea. It will happen, that's a near certainty. Some day, somebody will think that's a good idea, and since it's easy, the scheme will get widely used.

If you don't trust the web or the device, where will you get the driver? Why did you plug the device in the first place?

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#66

Post by bborud »

jrockway wrote: post #2

Why not just pick a VID and start using it? USB is so well understood at this point that there is no need for anyone to play ball with an "official" organization. (Whoever gets "officially" issued that VID is going to whine when they notice it's already being used for hobbyist purposes anyway, which means that the technique of just picking one will guarantee uniqueness.)

You wouldn't even have to make use of the VID. If a sizeable group would just agree that "we're going to view this range as set aside for open source and start using it", no company would want to accept being assigned a VID in this range.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#67

Post by crististm »

samworm wrote: post #5
jrockway wrote: post #2

Why not just pick a VID and start using it? USB is so well understood at this point that there is no need for anyone to play ball with an "official" organization. (Whoever gets "officially" issued that VID is going to whine when they notice it's already being used for hobbyist purposes anyway, which means that the technique of just picking one will guarantee uniqueness.)

The way these things normally work is that you're only allowed to use the name and marks if you're an official licensee. So if you put the USB logo on your marketing and claim to have a "USB Mini" connector in your specifications then you could be in trouble on two fronts: (1) the usb folks can sue you for using their IP and (2) purchasers can claim the product is not "as described" which may given them certain right…

It's like if you want your CD to have the "compact disc- digital audio" label you have to comply with whatever colored book. People stopped caring about that long ago and won't care much for USB either as long as it works.

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#68

Post by PhasmaFelis »

alcari wrote: post #10
eksith wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 purpos…

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.

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

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#69

Post by usea »

kefka wrote: post #6
samworm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way these things normally work is that you're only allowed to use the name and marks if you're an official licensee. So if you put the USB logo on your marketing and claim to have a "USB Mini" connector in your specifications then you could be in trouble on two fronts: (1) the usb folks can sue you for using their IP and (2) purchasers can claim the product is not "as described" which may given them certain right…

One should be able to say "Compatible with USB2", in the similar way 3rd party companies made cartridges for the Nintendo. And about squatting on a VID.. Well, they should have thought about pollution of their namespace on their anti-hobbiest policies. They frankly deserve it.

> One should be able to say "Compatible with USB2", in the similar way 3rd party companies made cartridges for the Nintendo.

The most prolific of those 3rd party companies was sued by Nintendo and lost.[1][2] Although that case is not directly applicable, and had different circumstances. I thought it was worth mentioning.

[1] http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1015.htm

[2] http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3146206

Re: USB Implementers Forum Says No to Open Source

#70

Post by rtkwe »

qwerty_asdf wrote: post #47
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have: "There are a number of ideas to get around VTM Group that include squatting on USB VID 0xF055"

Does anybody own these? 0xDEAD 0xBEEF 0x1337 0xFACE 0xF00D 0xABCD ...and so on? Maybe, if they're reserved as unassignable (due to being an inappropriate value for professional, business puposes), then perhaps it's open season on those.

Looks like no: http://www.linux-usb.org/usb.ids

Though I'm not sure how accurate and complete this list is.

Edit the official list is here but they list their VIDs in dec.

Post reply on HN