And if you use software that has to make questionably legal workarounds to keep devices that they don't like from talking to it... oh wait
Both Apple and Palm's behavior in this matter is equally questionable.
No, not at all. Apple's software is sitting there being itself. Palm's device is pretending to be something it isn't to trick the USB rules. Come on.
No, that is not an accurate depiction of what happened.
Palm made the first move for sure... the Pre spoofs being an iPod by reporting that it is a USB mass storage device named "iPod". However, at that point, they were not violating any of the USB rules. It wasn't a great idea to be sure and Apple had every reason to be annoyed but there was nothing questionable about it from a legal perspective.
What Apple did next was questionable. Instead of looking for the device iname, they went for the USB vendor ID and denied any device that wasn't manufactured by Apple. This is questionable as when you apply for a USB vendor ID, you agree to not do this. What Palm did in response was to change the vendor ID on the Pre to say Apple. This is equally questionable as when you apply for a USB vendor ID, you also agree not to do that. All of that info is in the link that drasche posted.
So therefore, if Palm is in the wrong (likely) then Apple is also in the wrong (also likely). Palm's first shot was, again, not a great idea but initially they weren't technically in the wrong from a legal perspective. Now they both are behaving questionable and in pretty much equal amounts.