Filed last Friday, the latest version of the settlement is more limited in scope, but has still drawn the ire of critics, who claim it remains rife with “anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.”

Chin evidently disagrees, and Google (GOOG) is obviously quite pleased that he has done so. “The preliminary approval order sends a positive initial message; this agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form,” the company said in a statement.

“We remain hopeful that the agreement will receive final approval from the court,” Google continues, “and will realize the goal of significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web.”

In a statement of its own, the Open Books Alliance, one of the settlement’s harshest critics, warned Google not to get too, too hopeful. “Today, in an expected procedural move, Judge Denny Chin granted preliminary approval to the revised Settlement of Google’s copyright infringement lawsuit,” the group said.

“This is not a surprising development and is not any indication that the court will or will not accept the terms of Settlement 2.0,” the Alliance warned. “The same procedural preliminary approval was given to Settlement 1.0, and now sets up a court process that will allow those opposed to the revised settlement to let their objections known to the court. The U.S. Department of Justice has until February 4th to weigh in with the court, as their investigation into the matter continues.”

From Palm’s webOS 1.2.1 version information:

Feature changes to existing applications
System

• Resolves an issue preventing media sync from working with latest version of iTunes (9.0.1).
• Media sync now synchronizes photo albums, maintaining the album structure in the Photos app.

How did Palm (PALM) do this? By once again making the Pre masquerade as an Apple (AAPL) device. Plug your Pre into your computer and set it to Media Sync and it identifies itself like this:

USB Product ID: 0×1209
USB Vendor ID: 0×05ac (Apple, Inc)
Manufacturer: Apple Inc.

A brazen move, considering the USB-IF specifically warned Palm against doing exactly this in its Sept. 22 letter to the company:

I attach for your information the USB-IF’s adopted and published policy regarding Vendor Identification Numbers (VIDs). Under the Policy, Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage. Usage of any other company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded. Palm’s expressed intent to use Apple’s VID appears to violate the attached policy.

Please clarify Palm’s intent and respond to this potential violation within seven days.

Now that Palm has “clarified its intent” with regard to this potential violation, I wonder how Apple and the USB-IF will respond. Do they have any recourse? The USB-IF could revoke Palm’s membership in the group, but what would that accomplish? Very little, as far as I can tell. Certainly, it wouldn’t prevent Palm from continuing to update its devices to synch with iTunes.

Reached for comment, Palm declined to offer one. Apple and the USB-IF have not yet responded to my requests. If and when they do, I’ll update here.

UPDATE: Looks like this cat and mouse game is going to go another round. This just in from Apple: “As we’ve said before, newer versions of Apple’s iTunes software may no longer provide syncing functionality with unsupported digital media players.” Presumably, iTunes 9.0.2 will disable Palm’s latest fix.

In a letter submitted to Apple and Palm today, the group dismissed Palm’s claim that Apple has violated its USB-IF Membership Agreement. Worse, the Forum took issue with Palm’s alleged use of Apple’s vendor identification number, which it says violates USB-IF policy.

Palm (PALM) had argued that Apple (AAPL), by issuing an update to iTunes that used the USB vendor ID number to prevent the software from automatically transferring content to any non-Apple USB device, had violated “the letter and spirit of the USB-IF Membership Agreement,” which is “intended to facilitate interoperability between USB devices, not to regulate the content that flows between them.”

But the USB-IF didn’t quite see things that way. “In the view of the USB-IF, Palm’s allegation (if true) does not establish that Apple is using its Vendor ID (VID) contrary to the USB-IF’s policies,” the group said. “Therefore, under present USB-IF policies, the USB-IF does not consider the alleged use, without more, to be ‘improper.’”

Ugly news for Palm, and it only gets worse–because the USB-IF goes on to suggest that Palm itself is violating its Membership Agreement by using Apple’s vendor ID number to disguise the Pre as an Apple device. From the USB-IF letter:

… Your letter also states that:

“Palm will shortly issue an update of its WebOS operating system that uses Apple’s Vendor ID number for the sole purpose of restoring the Palm media sync functionality.”

I attach for your information the USB-IF’s adopted and published policy regarding Vendor Identification Numbers (VIDs). Under the Policy, Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage. Usage of any other company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded. Palm’s expressed intent to use Apple’s VID appears to violate the attached policy.

Please clarify Palm’s intent and respond to this potential violation within seven days.

Uh oh.

Clearly, this isn’t the outcome Palm imagined when it first decided to up the ante in its quaint little cat-and-mouse game with Apple. Reached for comment, Palm had only this to say: “We engaged with the USB-IF because we believe consumers should have freedom and choice in how and where they use the non-rights managed media they already own. We are reviewing the letter from the USB-IF and will respond as appropriate.”

The $200 million verdict is the second-largest patent jury award this year, the largest of all–coincidentally, I’m sure–being the $388 million verdict against Microsoft won by Singapore’s Uniloc in April over an infringement of its security technology. Then, as in the i4i case and most other patent rulings that haven’t gone its way, Redmond responded with incredulity, claiming it couldn’t have possibly infringed on the patent because the patent is invalid. “We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid,” said David Bowermaster, a Microsoft spokesman, in the company’s now boilerplate statement on such matters. “We believe this award of damages is legally and factually unsupported, so we will ask the court to overturn the verdict.”

Mr. Papermaster’s employment by Apple is a violation of his agreement with IBM against working for a competitor should he leave IBM. We will vigorously pursue this case in court.”

– IBM, October 2008

IBM’s legal efforts to enforce a noncompete agreement that would have prevented 26-year company veteran Mark Papermaster from jumping ship for a high-profile job at Apple appear to have failed. In a terse statement issued this morning, Apple (AAPL) said the litigation between IBM (IBM) and Mark Papermaster has been resolved. Come April 24, Papermaster will begin leading Apple’s iPod and iPhone hardware engineering teams as SVP of Devices Hardware Engineering, reporting to CEO Steve Jobs. He will, however, have to certify in July and October that he has complied with legal obligations and not used confidential IBM information at Apple. From IBM’s own release on the matter:

IBM and Mr. Papermaster have now agreed on a resolution of the lawsuit under which Mr. Papermaster may not begin employment with Apple until April 24, 2009, six months after leaving IBM, and will remain subject thereafter to all of his contractual and other legal duties to IBM, including the obligation not to use or disclose IBM’s confidential information. Following commencement of his employment with Apple, Mr. Papermaster will be required to certify, in July 2009 and again in October 2009, that he has complied with his legal obligations not to use or disclose IBM’s confidential or proprietary information. The preliminary injunction will be replaced by a court order under which the Court will have continuing jurisdiction over this matter, including compliance enforcement powers, until October 24, 2009, one year after Mr. Papermaster’s departure from IBM.”

For YouTube, which has been struggling to monetize the 330 million visitors coming its way each month, this may be the beginning of the business model that has so far eluded it. That said, the company is going to have to offer those visitors a bit more than grainy “MacGyver” reruns if it hopes to prevent them from turning to Hulu for premium long-form video content.

THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this … ever got to the FBI I was f–ked.”

– Excerpt from a message posted to 4chan.org by someone claiming to have hacked into Gov. Sarah Palin’s Yahoo Mail account

Five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and a three-year term of supervised release. That’s the maximum sentence facing the Tennessee college student who was indicted today on charges that he broke into Gov. Sarah Palin’s private email account last month. According to a statement from the FBI, David C. Kernell–an economics major at the University of Tennessee and the son of Tennessee state legislator Mike Kernell–was indicted by a federal grand jury for “gaining unlawful access to stored communications and obtaining information from a protected computer via interstate communication,” or as the McCain campaign described it, “a shocking invasion of the Governor’s privacy and a violation of the law.”

Kernell entered the not guilty plea at the hearing and was released on bond with the following conditions:

• He may not leave the Eastern District of Tennessee without court permission.
• He may not possess a computer.
• He may use the Internet for classwork only.
• He may not have any contact with Gov. Sarah Palin or her family.

A trial date has been set for Dec. 16.

“I am extending the temporary restraining order because I’m not satisfied in the fact that this technology is not in violation,” Patel explained. “There are serious questions about copyright violations. There are questions about violations of the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and violations of these companies’ agreement.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Rent. Rip. Restraining Order.
• StealDVD? Well, You Were Asking for It…
• Sue. Rent. Rip. Return.
• Rent. Rip. Return.

What a lousy week for the digital GOP.

First, John McCain’s domestic policy adviser conjures up a PR disaster by crediting the senator with the development of the Blackberry–odd, since McCain’s not exactly a digital native. Then former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina says U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s not qualified to run HP. And now, Palin’s Yahoo email account has been hacked and its contents published to Wikileaks. Serves her right for using Yahoo Mail.

What at astonishingly tech-savvy presidential ticket. Keystone Kops on the campaign trail.

The McCain-Palin campaign and Yahoo (YHOO) haven’t yet confirmed the authenticity of the hack or the published emails, but Amy McCorkell, a member of Alaska’s Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, tells Wired that one of her messages to Palin is among those posted to Wikileaks.

An ugly turn of events for Palin, who’s been criticized recently for using her Yahoo Mail account to conduct official government business. Uglier still if the deletion of Palin’s Yahoo accounts is considered an obstruction of justice.

UPDATE: McCain-Palin 2008 Campaign Manager Rick Davis just issued the following statement on the matter: “This is a shocking invasion of the Governor’s privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment.”

That response would seem to resolve the authenticity issue. Now whom do we have to bomb to get those emails off the Web?