What is it with the PFF and the assumption that everyone supports coercion on integration? Integration could easily be an outcome in a market where engineers could break into others' systems to provide interoperability, provided that a good faith effort was made to keep from opening up wide security holes.

Integration and interoperability are not technically opposed. Real has already proved that with their previous successful hacks that have allowed them to integrate the iPod into their product stack. The public benefited from that because it was more choice for iPod owners.

Sometimes I really think that the PFF needs to hire some policy analysts who have a strong engineering, not law, background...

What about the people who support, not coerced interoperability, but allowing third parties to develop interoperable products on their own dime? Then, consumer who want tight integration could buy only Apple products, but those who wanted an iPod with different software would have the benefits of interoperable products. It seems to me that that would give you the best of both worlds.

Tim, apparently those people (like us) don't really exist. Sometimes I'm floored by the binary logic I see here on technical issues. Integration and interoperability have no inherent conflict. The only problem is that it requires a more concerted effort to integrate seamlessly with multiple products that are designed differently. Even then, though, there are lowest common denominator features that can be supported through a well-engineered software interface.

***competitors are seeking tighter integration of their hardware and their music download services, because this is how Apple achieved its overwhelming success***

Mike/Tim, I don't believe Jim was calling interoperability and integration inherently opposed (either by the market, or technologically). The point is that those who advocate mandated interoperability are pushing for a solution that goes in a different direction from the industry observation that top down integration between music services/peripherals may be the most effective approach.

So who is calling for coerced interop? Hmmm. Can you translate that last sentence to French, perhaps some other European languages. In the US, I see more efforts at coerced interop coming through antitrust law.

In my view, if you want interoperability with a competitor product, do the work and reverse engineer.

While interop and integration are not inherently opposed, the realities of development does introduce issues. Most flailed integration efforts between parties come from one company wanting the benefits of joint-development, but refusing to disclose "everything" to their partner for fear of misappropriation, and simple distrust. The result is subpart interoperability that doesn't compare to integrated top to bottom efforts, such as Apple.

In some ways, this is non-ideal. Small companies may be deterred from moving into the music market, from participating in the lucrative digital distribution and peripheral business. But on the other hand, if they're really innovative companies, small firms will either successfully reverse engineer, have something to offer in their negotiations with the labels or large service/peripheral products, or they'll find a better way of doing things.

"In my view, if you want interoperability with a competitor product, do the work and reverse engineer."

Then we agree. Except that the DMCA makes it illegal to reverse engineer where DRM is concerned. Would you favor legislation permitting reverse engineering in order to enable interoperability with a competing DRM format?

Tim, ambiguity surrounding the DMCA 1201f fair use exemption should be clarified, but the DMCA is good law. We don't need more legislation. I'm curious though- what do you propose.

The caselaw on reverse engineering for interoperability under the DMCA is fairly stable when the purposes, intention, means and resulting product are legal. See Professor Ginsburg's review of a controversial DMCA case that its critics use as basis to blast it: Blizzard v. bnetd- http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/coherence_in_dm_1.html.