Let the hive mind of Engadget get that for you.
"I'm in the market for a new phone and money isn't a limitation. I'm also not partial to any particular US carrier, but here are some of the features I'd like to have: WiFi, GPS, good coverage in lots of places, push Gmail (a must!), physical keyboard (a must!), a touchscreen, decent battery life and a relatively slim body. And please, nothing that has a fruit logo on it. No offense to the fruit fans, though. Thanks!"
I'm no lawyer, but I think if you actively ensure your product doesn't work with another companies, isn't that "Refusal to deal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal)? Now, if Apple does, in fact, release new functionality that causes the Pre (or any other device it doesn't explicitly support) to stop functioning, that's one thing, but if they release something like
if(device.profile=="PalmPre"){
throw(new CriticalErrorr());
}
I think that's against the law. Again, not a lawyer, but I'd like to hear from Nilay :)
You're talking "anti-trust" issue. Just like what happened to Microsoft. Somebody made a mention on one of Engadget posts that was pretty smart. Basically said that the judge would throw it out of court because Apple was making money on it via iTunes and Palm wasn't. Either way, someone over at WinAmp with make a work-around and TaDa, you have syncing without the bloatware of iTunes.
What does "refusal to deal" have to do with the USA? Nothing.