The article is a second-hand source; the author could be trying to stir something up, or maybe just got a bit too excited. Who knows? The article also says the proposal, among others, "haven’t hit the desk of anyone at the USB Implementers Forum, the people who are actually in charge of designating USB VIDs and PIDs". Doesn't sound like the forum said no to me.
What is with this bizarre argument that paid legal representation doesn't legally represent their client? By definition, unless the USB Forum directs the VTM Group to retract the C&D, it represents the Forum's position.
