Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

One can not transfer files (such as pictures taken) with the bluetooth  
as configured in the Verizon model of the Motorola v710..
Upset users are suing:
 
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&u=/nm/20050113
/tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jack Zwick wrote:
> One can not transfer files (such as pictures taken) with the bluetooth
> as configured in the Verizon model of the Motorola v710..
> Upset users are suing:
>
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&u=/nm/20050113
> /tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>
 
This, of course, is going nowhere at high speed.  The only grounds for a  
suit would be in Verizon's licensing of Bluetooth if the license were to  
prohibit modification without permission of the Bluetooth capabilities  
in order to preserve the "purity" of the Bluetooth trademark.  How  
consumers would have standing to sue is a mystery.
 
From the Bluetooth site: http://www.bluetooth.com/util/trademark.asp
 
"The Bluetooth brand inspires the possibilities of easy personal  
wireless connectivity. As such, the Bluetooth SIG has developed and  
published a specification requiring that products must be tested by a  
strict qualification process to use the Bluetooth word mark and logos.
Companies may become licensees of the marks by becoming a member of the  
Bluetooth SIG. Through the execution of membership agreements, including  
the Bluetooth Trademark Licensing Agreement, companies are able to use  
the Bluetooth marks on qualified products, packaging, marketing  
materials, web pages, etc. Additional non-exclusive licensing agreements  
are required for Bluetooth trademark usage for such things as  
Pavillions, Tradeshow event names, and retailers of the technology."
 
Not a word or implication that consumers have rights from Bluetooth SIG.
 
Q

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-D2C03E.17143813012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
 
> One can not transfer files (such as pictures taken) with the bluetooth  
> as configured in the Verizon model of the Motorola v710..
> Upset users are suing:
>  
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&u=/nm/20050113
> /tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>
 
 
FOLLOWUP
 
I looked on the Verizon website to see if the plaintiffs could fairly  
say they had been mislead, and it looks to me like they got a case;
 
Verizon's website says:
 
" Bluetooth is a low bandwidth, wireless networking technology designed  
primarily to replace cables for communication between personal computing  
and communication devices. It is intended to be used for both voice and  
data communications "
 
No where is it specified that data transfer is not capable in the v710.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <862dnRr0us8OmHrcRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
 "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote:
 
> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > One can not transfer files (such as pictures taken) with the bluetooth
> > as configured in the Verizon model of the Motorola v710..
> > Upset users are suing:
> >
> > <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&u=/nm/20050113
> > /tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>
>  
> This, of course, is going nowhere at high speed.  The only grounds for a  
> suit would be in Verizon's licensing of Bluetooth if the license were to  
> prohibit modification without permission of the Bluetooth capabilities  
> in order to preserve the "purity" of the Bluetooth trademark.  How  
> consumers would have standing to sue is a mystery.
>  
> From the Bluetooth site: http://www.bluetooth.com/util/trademark.asp
>  
> "The Bluetooth brand inspires the possibilities of easy personal  
> wireless connectivity. As such, the Bluetooth SIG has developed and  
> published a specification requiring that products must be tested by a  
> strict qualification process to use the Bluetooth word mark and logos.
> Companies may become licensees of the marks by becoming a member of the  
> Bluetooth SIG. Through the execution of membership agreements, including  
> the Bluetooth Trademark Licensing Agreement, companies are able to use  
> the Bluetooth marks on qualified products, packaging, marketing  
> materials, web pages, etc. Additional non-exclusive licensing agreements  
> are required for Bluetooth trademark usage for such things as  
> Pavillions, Tradeshow event names, and retailers of the technology."
>  
> Not a word or implication that consumers have rights from Bluetooth SIG.
>  
> Q  
 
Lead my followup posting. Verizon was clearly vague and misleading, and
only disabled those bluetooth functions that could be replaced with a  
fee based substitute, but never said so.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-9F2F82.17444713012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <jzwick3-D2C03E.17143813012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>  Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > One can not transfer files (such as pictures taken) with the bluetooth
> > as configured in the Verizon model of the Motorola v710..
> > Upset users are suing:
> >
> >
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&u=/nm/20050113
> > /tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>
>
>
> FOLLOWUP
>
> I looked on the Verizon website to see if the plaintiffs could fairly
> say they had been mislead, and it looks to me like they got a case;
>
> Verizon's website says:
>
> " Bluetooth is a low bandwidth, wireless networking technology designed
> primarily to replace cables for communication between personal computing
> and communication devices. It is intended to be used for both voice and
> data communications "
>
> No where is it specified that data transfer is not capable in the v710.
 
FOLLOWUP TO THE TROLL'S FOLLOWUP
 
 I looked on the Verizon website to see if the plaintiffs could fairly say
they had been mislead, and it looks to me like they've got no case;
 
Verizon's website says:
 
 
Profiles
  a.. What are Bluetooth profiles?
 
  A profile is a description of how to use a specification to implement a
given end-user function. The International Standards Organization (ISO)
first came up with the idea of profiles. In Bluetooth, there are several
profiles available and they are arranged in a hierarchical fashion, as
illustrated in this diagram. For example, in order to use the headset
profile, a device must also include the lower level profiles such as the
serial port and general access profiles.
  b.. Which profiles does Verizon Wireless currently support?
 
  Verizon Wireless currently supports three Bluetooth profiles:
    · Headset - for connecting Bluetooth headsets
 
    · Hands-Free - for connecting hands-free car kits
 
    · Dial-up Networking (DUN) - to allow the handset to be used as a modem
 
 
 
    No where is it specified that data transfer is possible with any Verizon
BT phone.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I just looked on the VerizonWireless site and on the V710 page it
states, "And with Bluetooth® wireless technology, you can make
hands-free, eyes-free calls, and connect to your PC or PDA whenever and
wherever you want."
 
Since PCs and PDAs are not generally recognized as voice devices, it
certainly seems that VZW is touting data capabilities. They don't say
you can "connect your PC/PDA to the internet," they say you can
"connect [your phone] to your PC or PDA". Connect _from_ where? The
internet? Not likely.
 
So to me it sounds like the lawyers could make a case. And some
money... the phone owners will not get more than a coupon good for V710
accessories at a VZW store.
 
And most (all?) modems I've used are data devices.
 
tg.
ps -- why are we having this conversation in the Cingular newsgroup??

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <1105665280.454644.233640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 glaabtom@netscape.net wrote:
 
> I just looked on the VerizonWireless site and on the V710 page it
> states, "And with Bluetooth® wireless technology, you can make
> hands-free, eyes-free calls, and connect to your PC or PDA whenever and
> wherever you want."
>  
> Since PCs and PDAs are not generally recognized as voice devices, it
> certainly seems that VZW is touting data capabilities. They don't say
> you can "connect your PC/PDA to the internet," they say you can
> "connect [your phone] to your PC or PDA". Connect  from  where? The
> internet? Not likely.
>  
> So to me it sounds like the lawyers could make a case. And some
> money... the phone owners will not get more than a coupon good for V710
> accessories at a VZW store.
>  
> And most (all?) modems I've used are data devices.
>  
> tg.
> ps -- why are we having this conversation in the Cingular newsgroup??
 
The v710 is feature-wize quite similar to the v600.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

<glaabtom@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1105665280.454644.233640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I just looked on the VerizonWireless site and on the V710 page it
states, "And with Bluetooth® wireless technology, you can make
hands-free, eyes-free calls, and connect to your PC or PDA whenever and
wherever you want."
 
>Since PCs and PDAs are not generally recognized as voice devices, it
certainly seems that VZW is touting data capabilities. They don't say
you can "connect your PC/PDA to the internet," they say you can
"connect [your phone] to your PC or PDA". Connect _from_ where? The
internet? Not likely.
 
 
I can connect to my computer with my non-BT phone.  It's not needed to
connect and/or transfer data between the two.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:4aGdnTR22pLFtnrcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
>
> <glaabtom@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1105665280.454644.233640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >I just looked on the VerizonWireless site and on the V710 page it
> states, "And with Bluetooth® wireless technology, you can make
> hands-free, eyes-free calls, and connect to your PC or PDA whenever and
> wherever you want."
>
> >Since PCs and PDAs are not generally recognized as voice devices, it
> certainly seems that VZW is touting data capabilities. They don't say
> you can "connect your PC/PDA to the internet," they say you can
> "connect [your phone] to your PC or PDA". Connect _from_ where? The
> internet? Not likely.
>
>
> I can connect to my computer with my non-BT phone.  It's not needed to
> connect and/or transfer data between the two.
 
 
But VZW advertises the ability to connect with Bluetooth then disables those
features in the phone.
 
--
SS

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
 
In <jzwick3-3ADF62.17463813012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 13 Jan
2005 23:46:46 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
 
>Lead my followup posting.
 
Lead?
 
>Verizon was clearly vague and misleading, and
>only disabled those bluetooth functions that could be replaced with a  
>fee based substitute, but never said so.
 
Irrelevant.
 
--  
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
 
In <34ootcF49nudjU1@individual.net> on Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:25:00 -0600,
"Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
 
>
>"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:4aGdnTR22pLFtnrcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
>>
>> <glaabtom@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:1105665280.454644.233640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >I just looked on the VerizonWireless site and on the V710 page it
>> states, "And with Bluetooth® wireless technology, you can make
>> hands-free, eyes-free calls, and connect to your PC or PDA whenever and
>> wherever you want."
>>
>> >Since PCs and PDAs are not generally recognized as voice devices, it
>> certainly seems that VZW is touting data capabilities. They don't say
>> you can "connect your PC/PDA to the internet," they say you can
>> "connect [your phone] to your PC or PDA". Connect _from_ where? The
>> internet? Not likely.
>>
>>
>> I can connect to my computer with my non-BT phone.  It's not needed to
>> connect and/or transfer data between the two.
>
>
>But VZW advertises the ability to connect with Bluetooth then disables those
>features in the phone.
 
If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't delivered,
then there is NO CASE.
 
--  
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
 
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
 
In <jzwick3-9F2F82.17444713012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Thu, 13 Jan
2005 23:44:55 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
 
>In article <jzwick3-D2C03E.17143813012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> One can not transfer files (such as pictures taken) with the bluetooth  
>> as configured in the Verizon model of the Motorola v710..
>> Upset users are suing:
>>  
>> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&u=/nm/20050113
>> /tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>
>
>
>FOLLOWUP
>
>I looked on the Verizon website to see if the plaintiffs could fairly  
>say they had been mislead, and it looks to me like they got a case;
>
>Verizon's website says:
>
>" Bluetooth is a low bandwidth, wireless networking technology designed  
>primarily to replace cables for communication between personal computing  
>and communication devices. It is intended to be used for both voice and  
>data communications "
>
>No where is it specified that data transfer is not capable in the v710.
 
Verizon is under no obligation to do so.
 
--  
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>>But VZW advertises the ability to connect with Bluetooth then disables those
>>features in the phone.
 
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:02:57 GMT, John Navas wrote:
>  
> If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
> Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't delivered,
> then there is NO CASE.
 
Not necessarily ... Failure to disclose product limitations *may* fall
under an "Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose."  ... I'd
say it's up to a judge to decide if there is a case.  An "implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose" is a promise, implied by law, by a
merchant who knows that a buyer intends to use a product for a particular
purpose, and has reason to know that the buyer is relying on the merchant's
knowledge or expertise, that the product is suitable for the buyer's
particular purpose.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <1nq7j9x442xiq.3rei94kcxk4b$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Jim <jim@none.no> wrote:
 
>  
> >>But VZW advertises the ability to connect with Bluetooth then disables  
> >>those
> >>features in the phone.
>  
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:02:57 GMT, John Navas wrote:
> >  
> > If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
> > Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't  
> > delivered,
> > then there is NO CASE.
>  
> Not necessarily ... Failure to disclose product limitations *may* fall
> under an "Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose."  ... I'd
> say it's up to a judge to decide if there is a case.  An "implied warranty
> of fitness for a particular purpose" is a promise, implied by law, by a
> merchant who knows that a buyer intends to use a product for a particular
> purpose, and has reason to know that the buyer is relying on the merchant's
> knowledge or expertise, that the product is suitable for the buyer's
> particular purpose.
 
And since Verizon discusses how Bluetooth is used for data transfer to a  
PC, but then disables that feature in the V710, They very clearly have  
misled their customers.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:47:48 -0500, Jim wrote
(in article <1nq7j9x442xiq.3rei94kcxk4b$.dlg@40tude.net> ):
 
>         Subject: Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
>             From: Jim <jim@none.no>
>              Date: Today  8:47 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular, alt.cellular.verizon
>  
>  
>>> But VZW advertises the ability to connect with Bluetooth then disables  
>>> those
>>> features in the phone.
>  
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:02:57 GMT, John Navas wrote:
>>  
>> If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
>> Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't  
>> delivered,
>> then there is NO CASE.
>  
> Not necessarily ... Failure to disclose product limitations *may* fall
> under an "Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose."  ... I'd
> say it's up to a judge to decide if there is a case.  An "implied warranty
> of fitness for a particular purpose" is a promise, implied by law, by a
> merchant who knows that a buyer intends to use a product for a particular
> purpose, and has reason to know that the buyer is relying on the merchant's
> knowledge or expertise, that the product is suitable for the buyer's
> particular purpose.
 
I would have otherwise assumed that I could do file transfers between phone &  
computer.  It's been a natural part of bluetooth since ... well, since I knew  
about bluetooth anyway.  I would imagine that other folks would have made the  
same assumption.
 
(I know, I know ... never assume).

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
 
In <1nq7j9x442xiq.3rei94kcxk4b$.dlg@40tude.net> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:47:48
-0500, Jim <jim@none.no> wrote:
 
>>>But VZW advertises the ability to connect with Bluetooth then disables those
>>>features in the phone.
>
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:02:57 GMT, John Navas wrote:
>>  
>> If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
>> Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't delivered,
>> then there is NO CASE.
>
>Not necessarily ... Failure to disclose product limitations *may* fall
>under an "Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose."  ... I'd
>say it's up to a judge to decide if there is a case.  ...
 
Since most Bluetooth devices don't support all profiles and features, there
can't be implied functionality, and thus there is NO CASE.
 
--  
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
 
In <jzwick3-838616.09411814012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 15:42:52 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
 
>In article <1nq7j9x442xiq.3rei94kcxk4b$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Jim <jim@none.no> wrote:
>
>>  
>> >>But VZW advertises the ability to connect with Bluetooth then disables  
>> >>those
>> >>features in the phone.
>>  
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:02:57 GMT, John Navas wrote:
>> >  
>> > If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
>> > Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't  
>> > delivered,
>> > then there is NO CASE.
>>  
>> Not necessarily ... Failure to disclose product limitations *may* fall
>> under an "Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose."  ... I'd
>> say it's up to a judge to decide if there is a case.  An "implied warranty
>> of fitness for a particular purpose" is a promise, implied by law, by a
>> merchant who knows that a buyer intends to use a product for a particular
>> purpose, and has reason to know that the buyer is relying on the merchant's
>> knowledge or expertise, that the product is suitable for the buyer's
>> particular purpose.
>
>And since Verizon discusses how Bluetooth is used for data transfer to a  
>PC, but then disables that feature in the V710, They very clearly have  
>misled their customers.
 
Nonsense, since nowhere in the description of the V710 is data transfer
promised.  Headset use is sufficient to meet both the letter and the spirit of
the law.
 
--  
Bes