Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710 - Page 5

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

In article <35hfovF4leg96U1@individual.net>,
"Peter Pan" <Marcs1102@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > In article <35h49vF4fp9atU1@individual.net>,
> > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Since the Moto v710 is CDMA, can anyone show a single CDMA phone with
> >> bluetooth that allows file transfer?
> >
> > How about the Sony T608 ?
>
> from http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=228
>
> The first CDMA phone with built-in Bluetooth for North America. Sports a
> color display, 1xRTT high-speed data, and Java downloadable applications.
>
> Offered By:
> . Sprint Discontinued
>
>
> Notice it was only offered by sprint, and is discontinued.....

What's the matter, gotta pick nits because you were proved wrong?

I didnt see where you asked for a different Verizon phone.

And 30 seconds of Googling will find you instructions for activating a
SprintPCS phone on Verizon.

You asked for a CDMA phone with Bluetooth file transfer, and despite
being "discontinued" 30 seconds of Google effort will find you a new
T608.

OK - How about the Treo 650 as a CDMA phone with Bluetooth file transfer
that is not "discontinued" ?

or the Sprint LG PM-325, or PPC-6601


Now we're up to 4 CDMA phones with Bluetooth File Transfer.

Your apology will be accepted.

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

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In article <35hfovF4leg96U1@individual.net>,
> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack Zwick wrote:
>>> In article <35h49vF4fp9atU1@individual.net>,
>>> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since the Moto v710 is CDMA, can anyone show a single CDMA phone
>>>> with bluetooth that allows file transfer?
>>>
>>> How about the Sony T608 ?
>>
>> from http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=228
>>
>> The first CDMA phone with built-in Bluetooth for North America.
>> Sports a color display, 1xRTT high-speed data, and Java downloadable
>> applications.
>>
>> Offered By:
>> . Sprint Discontinued
>>
>>
>> Notice it was only offered by sprint, and is discontinued.....
>
> What's the matter, gotta pick nits because you were proved wrong?
>
> I didnt see where you asked for a different Verizon phone.
>
> And 30 seconds of Googling will find you instructions for activating a
> SprintPCS phone on Verizon.
>
> You asked for a CDMA phone with Bluetooth file transfer, and despite
> being "discontinued" 30 seconds of Google effort will find you a new
> T608.
>
> OK - How about the Treo 650 as a CDMA phone with Bluetooth file
> transfer that is not "discontinued" ?
>
> or the Sprint LG PM-325, or PPC-6601
>
>
> Now we're up to 4 CDMA phones with Bluetooth File Transfer.
>
> Your apology will be accepted.

Sorry, didn't realize you are an ignoramus and can't read.... The title of
this thread is VERIZON SUED FOR CRIPPLING BLUETOOTH...

Anyone with common sense would know it is *VERIZON*, and not a sprint phone.

Oh well, guess it just proves what a 'tard you are.......

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

In article <35hob7F4n81n2U1@individual.net>,
"Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > In article <35hfovF4leg96U1@individual.net>,
> > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jack Zwick wrote:
> >>> In article <35h49vF4fp9atU1@individual.net>,
> >>> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Since the Moto v710 is CDMA, can anyone show a single CDMA phone
> >>>> with bluetooth that allows file transfer?
> >>>
> >>> How about the Sony T608 ?
> >>
> >> from http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=228
> >>
> >> The first CDMA phone with built-in Bluetooth for North America.
> >> Sports a color display, 1xRTT high-speed data, and Java downloadable
> >> applications.
> >>
> >> Offered By:
> >> . Sprint Discontinued
> >>
> >>
> >> Notice it was only offered by sprint, and is discontinued.....
> >
> > What's the matter, gotta pick nits because you were proved wrong?
> >
> > I didnt see where you asked for a different Verizon phone.
> >
> > And 30 seconds of Googling will find you instructions for activating a
> > SprintPCS phone on Verizon.
> >
> > You asked for a CDMA phone with Bluetooth file transfer, and despite
> > being "discontinued" 30 seconds of Google effort will find you a new
> > T608.
> >
> > OK - How about the Treo 650 as a CDMA phone with Bluetooth file
> > transfer that is not "discontinued" ?
> >
> > or the Sprint LG PM-325, or PPC-6601
> >
> >
> > Now we're up to 4 CDMA phones with Bluetooth File Transfer.
> >
> > Your apology will be accepted.
>
> Sorry, didn't realize you are an ignoramus and can't read.... The title of
> this thread is VERIZON SUED FOR CRIPPLING BLUETOOTH...
>
> Anyone with common sense would know it is *VERIZON*, and not a sprint phone.
>
> Oh well, guess it just proves what a 'tard you are.......

P L O N K

You were convinced no CDMA Bluetooth phone did file transfer. I proved
different.

Who's the retard?

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

In article <35hg8lF4m2le9U1@individual.net>,
"Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

> Guess I don't understand your point.. we both agree the phones
> themselves *DON'T* do it, unless you get an adapter in which case the
> adapter does it, not the phone. In any case, both are discontinued,
> so there are no current Verizon cellphones that support BT and File
> transfer.

And that's the problem.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-BA46C4.09554423012005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <35h49vF4fp9atU1@individual.net>,
> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> The point is there are a LOT of bluetooth phones out there that
> > >>>> don't support file transfer,
> > >>>
> > >>> But no-one can name a single model that does not.
> > >>
> > >> Funny, I specifically named how to find DOZENS of em....
> > >
> > > Instead of saying how to find them, how about naming them?
> >
> > Don't be an idiot..
>
> I'm not.
>
> > The bluetooth specs are at www.bluetooth.org and they say absolutely
> > nothing about requiring file transfer..
>
> Which has nothing to do with your claim that there are Bluetooth phones
> (other than the V710) that don't do file transfer via bluetooth. We're
> simply asking you to name them (or some of them, or even one of them).
>
> > Since the Moto v710 is CDMA, can anyone show a single CDMA phone with
> > bluetooth that allows file transfer? (hint, there are none, zero,
> > nada, zilch)
>
> What other CDMA bluetooth phones have bluetooth?
>
> > there have been 4 Verizon BT phones..
> > 2 current models (neither of which do file transfer)
> > Audiovox PPC-6600
>
> I can't find this one on Verizon's web site. But Audiovox does list it
> as being available from Verizon; however, they list it as a pocket pc,
> not as a wireless telephone. But it is amazing that a pocket PC doesn't
> allow data transfer.
>
> > Motorola V710
>
> yeah, we know about that one.
>
> So, what you are telling us is that because Verizon has chosen to
> cripple the phone by not allowing data transfer, we should not complain
> that Verizon has crippled the phone by not allowing data transfer?
>
> They don't allow data transfer (other than phone book and calendar)
> through the USB port either. We should just take that lying down, too?
>

Don't take it lying down. But you need to identify one other industry where
the consumer dictates to the provider what services they are required to
provide to avoid litigation. And you need to identify any other cellular
provider where the consumer dictates what type of information is transferred
by the provider's network. And while you're at it, name any industry that
doesn't allow for individual companies to add or subtract optional features
on a product.

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

Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> Again, irrelevant because it's a matter of advertised functionality.

You keep saying that, but you missed what I think is the most important
point, they do *NOT* advertise that you can do that.. Some people just
assume they can do it, but it doesn't say you can anywhere.

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-703206.11505223012005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <35i8skF4nf6nmU1@individual.net>,
> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > > Again, irrelevant because it's a matter of advertised
> > > functionality.
> >
> > You keep saying that, but you missed what I think is the most
> > important point, they do *NOT* advertise that you can do that.. Some
> > people just assume they can do it, but it doesn't say you can
> > anywhere.
>
> Yes, they do advertise it by implication, when they say that BT is
> designed for data transfer. This has been pointed out to you more than
> once.
>
> --

And data transfers between the headset and the phone when you use a BT
headset. What? You weren't talking about that kind of data? Neither is
Verizon, and anything less than an industry expert going on record and
saying that data does not flow between the phone and the headset is going to
quickly deflate this action. And as I've already posted twice (and has been
posted many times by others), Verizon actually states that the type of data
transfer you are looking for does not exist with them and has stated that
publicly in their website for quite a long time.

Anybody complaining about this is guilty of sloppy and incomplete research.
The fact that anyone is trying to hold the company responsible for the basic
stupidity of others is quite amusing.

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

In message <0001HW.BE17C311001FE9FBF04075B0@nntp.charter.net> SinghaLvr
<singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>I'm actually in agreement with you. It's not required. I just have not seen
>any devices that currently support bluetooth and not file transfer. (Not
>recently anyway). We see quite a few devices at my workplace (long story,
>but we write software that utilizes bluetooth file transfer among other
>things) and so far I can't think of a device that's come through from any
>vendor that didn't support this functionality.

Not to be argumentative, but I've got a bluetooth headset or two here
that doesn't support file transfer.

>I guess I'm more surprised that VZW would do something so different from most
>of the other vendors. Since you can still do file transfer with a USB cable
>they haven't prevented anything or protected any "contractual obligations",
>but they have raised the ire of at least a few of their customers. I'm not
>sure what the benefit will end up being to Verizion.

It could be that they have a contract which restricts them to using a
specific vendor for wireless application installation.

Using a cable might not violate the contract, but using anything
wireless, be it over the cellular network or over bluetooth, would be
classified as a violation.


--
To the book depository!
-- Homer

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-B491F4.01014224012005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <StCdnUI20LnmlmncRVn-ow@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > And data transfers between the headset and the phone when you use a
> > BT headset. What? You weren't talking about that kind of data?
>
> No, you're not talking about data; you're talking about voice signals.

Which is data.

>
> > And as I've already posted twice (and has been posted many times by
> > others), Verizon actually states that the type of data transfer you
> > are looking for does not exist with them and has stated that publicly
> > in their website for quite a long time.
>
> Exactly where on their web site does it say that?

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c [...] opicID=190


a.. 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


>
> > Anybody complaining about this is guilty of sloppy and incomplete
> > research.
>
> Assuming that such a statement actually does exist.

It now exists at least a half dozen times inthis thread.

>
> > The fact that anyone is trying to hold the company responsible for
> > the basic stupidity of others is quite amusing.
>
> The fact that some people will go to such lengths to defend the
> anti-consumer business practices of Verizon is quite amusing.

I dislike VZW as much as anyone in this thread. That doesn't mean that lies
are the way to bring them down. They'll do it on their own some day, but it
won't be because of the inability of tconsumers to do basic research.

What is amusing are the lengthss that people will go to in order to get
'justice.' The only justice for stupidity is exactly what is going on here.
THe fact that thsi has now dissloved inot a search forthe technicality that
'proves' things makes me feel like my kids are on the other end of this
thread. I expect it out of them- they're kids.

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-3479C9.13160824012005@news.west.cox.net...

>
> So, the effort should now be directed towards persuading Verizon to
> change its policy, and to support data transfer for address book,
> calendar, and/or images via bluetooth.
>
> --

Exactly- worst case you get is an attempt by VZW to explain why they have
disabled a phone feature that has no impact on network performance.

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <0001HW.BE150B8C0026144EF03055B0@nntp.charter.net> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
07:17:32 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:57:48 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <0wJHd.2933$m31.36396@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>
>>>> How is that relevant?
>>>
>>> (Playing devils advocate)
>>>
>>> If every phone prior to the V710 supported file transfer do you not think
>>> that such a profile would become a de-facto "standard issue" in the eyes of
>>> a majority of the buying public?
>>
>> Not as a matter of legal obligation.
>
>Perhaps for a Jury?

It would have to be certified as a valid class action by a judge before it
could even get to a jury, something I think is unlikely. Care to bet? ;-)

--
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 <C-ednbymaYOPxG3cRVn-rA@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:22:16 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:3YKdnXWzws2Rym3cRVn-3A@adelphia.com...

>Wait- I may have answered my own question. You were called as an expert to
>compare computer code and only to compare computer code. 1986? SEA and
>PKWARE? ...

Nice start (and good for you for actually doing some homework rather than just
the usual wild mud slinging), but far from the only time I've been qualified
as an expert. Keep digging.

--
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?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:eDTJd.3821$m31.53117@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <C-ednbymaYOPxG3cRVn-rA@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
18:22:16 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> >news:3YKdnXWzws2Rym3cRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
>
> >Wait- I may have answered my own question. You were called as an expert
to
> >compare computer code and only to compare computer code. 1986? SEA and
> >PKWARE? ...
>
> Nice start (and good for you for actually doing some homework rather than
just
> the usual wild mud slinging), but far from the only time I've been
qualified
> as an expert. Keep digging.
>
> --

Two things- first, I haven't been mud slinging. I have posted in response
to your own words. And I have not stooped to the level of being totally
non-responsive to posts- something which you seem to have resorted to in
other threads. Second, you have yet to post any credentials to back up your
claim that your status as an expert witness was based on anything in play
here. I've cited the only publicly documented association of your name with
any legal action, and the area of expertise falls far short of anything you
have tried to imply knowledge of. How about citing the cases where you were
called as an expert witness specifically in the areas of contract law,
copyright protection and truth in advertising? After all, you always seem
willing to cite your own legal interpretations of these areas with the
constant reminder of your experience as an expert witness.

Of course, I can save you the trouble if you'd like. You see, I have an old
high school buddy that is a Princeton professor and has access to their Law
Library. We plugged your name in and found no instance where you were
called as an expert in any of the three areas mentioned above. I'll even
translate that for you- you have no recognizable knowledge, expertise or
experience in the areas of contract law, copyright protection and truth in
advertising. I'd say that my digging is complete.

Feel free to refute, although you'll need to cite specific instances that
can be verified independently. My money is on the fact that you will never
do it (because there is nothing to cite) and simply resort to evasion, name
calling or out of context replies- all things you seem to be excelling at
these days.

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

"Tropical Haven" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:41F70200.90604@example.net...

>
> While I do agree that the VZW website is clear *now*, when I first read
> the specs on the V710, I was almost under the impression that it did
> support file transfer. When I looked (it was before the lawsuit), it
> said bluetooth capable (and a link to bluetooth). After clicking on the
> bluetooth capable link, it took you to a generic page that described
> functions of bluetooth, with file transfer being listed. I feel that
> the profiles were probably available, it's just that I didn't see them.
> Of course I heard many rants about FT on VZW, and since I'm not a VZW
> customer and I wasn't looking to purchase the V710, it doesn't really
> matter to me.
>

Actually, the page I cited was there long before this last rant started, and
was there as it is now.

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

> It's like yov and Phillippe have morphed
> into a single SvperTroll.

Yes, and vnfortvnately this vnion has raised the new message reminderby
bringing yov the ALLOVER( ) troll, giving yov more vnwanted posts on
more servers. Yovr killfile will *not* expand to inclvde all Phillippe
and OP vnwanted messages. Welcome to the new Phillippe.

Standard Disclaimer: Cingvlar neither moderates, promotes, nor is
associated with either the formerly individval trolls or the new troll
vnion.


Sorry, I jvst covldn't resist.

TH

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:xxlKd.4185$m31.56060@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <wO2dnWWersmCpmXcRVn-1A@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005
17:52:16 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >... It's like you and Phillippe have morphed
> >into a single SuperTroll.
>
> Yet more mud slinging. I rest my case.
>
> --
More avoidance- I rest my case.

Although I noticed that you chose to respond to this post but ignore the one
asking you to cite specific examples of expertise you implied possessing.
Should we consider that lack of silence as a lack of said expertise or the
inability to admit error?

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

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:43:52 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:20:38 -0500, Peter Pan wrote
>> (in article <35fqspF4l155vU1@individual.net> ):
>>
>>> The point is there are a LOT of bluetooth phones out there that
>>> don't support file transfer,
>>
>> But no-one can name a single model that does not.
>
You keep saying that, and that statement is totally false..... (of course if
you didn't LIE, you wouldn't have any gripe whatsoever).. Look at the
header.. we are talking VERIZON.... not some other carrier......

Verizon at various times has offered the following five bluetooth enabled
(or possible with options) phones:

Motorola E815 Verizon Wireless
Motorola Timeport 270c Alltel / Qwest Wireless / U.S. Cellular / Verizon
Wireless
Motorola V710 Alltel / U.S. Cellular / Verizon Wireless
Sony Ericsson T61c MetroPCS / Verizon Wireless
UTStarcom (Audiovox) PPC-6600 / PPC-6601 / XV6600 (HTC Harrier) Sprint /
Verizon Wireless

Not a *single one* of the phones offered by verizon have *EVER* supported
the type of file transfer profile being discussed, so it seems pretty silly
to sue for not doing something that has never been offered on any other
phone.

Who cares what other carriers have or do, they are *NOT* verizon...Apples
and oranges.. That's like suing Dodge cuz their cars don't carry as much
cargo as a ford f-550 truck.

They are all listed as:
Bluetooth

Bluetooth is a short-range wireless technology used to create PANs (Personal
Area Networks) among your devices, and with other nearby devices.

Bluetooth allows you to leave your phone in your pocket, while talking on
your phone with a Bluetooth headset - with no wires. You can also exchange
contact or scheduling information with other Bluetooth-enabled phones
nearby, or send such information to a nearby Bluetooth-enabled printer.

Another common use is to give your laptop computer or PDA wireless
high-speed Internet access via Bluetooth and your phone.

Many newer automobiles also have Bluetooth, which can interface with a phone
in a pocket, to allow automatic hands-free phone capability.

More innovative uses include playing a game against someone with a similar
phone nearby, or using a special Bluetooth pen to send SMS messages by
simply writing them on paper.

Blueooth functionality is divided into seperate types of connections known
as "profiles". Each of the various scenarios outlined above involve a
different profile. Not all Bluetooth devices support all profiles.

For example, a Bluetooth headset might only support the Headset profile,
while others might support both Headset and the similar Handsfree profile,
for increased compatibility. Similarly, a phone might only support the
Handsfree profile, and not the Headset profile, while other phones might
support both.

Bluetooth is named for the 10th century Viking, King Herald Bluetooth.

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <michelle-07E19C.09582023012005@news.west.cox.net> on Sun, 23 Jan 2005
09:58:20 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <35hohjF4m5lghU1@individual.net>,
> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> > Did you bother to read the highly misleadly statements on the
>> > Verizon website:
>> >
>> > "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. "
>>
>> Funny how you are such an idiot that can read a verizon website, yet
>> you post about phones from OTHER carriers like sprint.
>
>Funny how you are such an idiot that can read that Verizon says that
>Bluetooth is intended to be used for data communications, yet defend
>Verizon for suppressing data communications in its own phones.

Bluetooth in the V710 does support data transfer, just not the particular kind
you want.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-42F545.06211623012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 23 Jan
2005 12:21:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <35hg8lF4m2le9U1@individual.net>,
> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>> Guess I don't understand your point.. we both agree the phones themselves
>> *DON'T* do it, unless you get an adapter in which case the adapter does it,
>> not the phone. In any case, both are discontinued, so there are no current
>> Verizon cellphones that support BT and File transfer.
>
>Did you bother to read the highly misleadly statements on the Verizon
>website:
>
>"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. "

Nothing misleading about that -- the V710 can in fact do both voice and data
over Bluetooth.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <michelle-351529.10211923012005@news.west.cox.net> on Sun, 23 Jan 2005
10:21:19 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <0e6dnRtlu6G1RG7cRVn-qw@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't take it lying down. But you need to identify one other
>> industry where the consumer dictates to the provider what services
>> they are required to provide to avoid litigation.
>
>No I don't. All that needs to be proved is that the company advertised
>a feature, even if by implication, and didn't deliver on its promise.

Nothing of the kind has been shown.

>> And while you're at it, name any industry that doesn't allow for
>> individual companies to add or subtract optional features on a
>> product.
>
>Again, irrelevant because it's a matter of advertised functionality.

Nonsense.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <StCdnUI20LnmlmncRVn-ow@adelphia.com> on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:39:38 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
>news:michelle-703206.11505223012005@news.west.cox.net...
>> In article <35i8skF4nf6nmU1@individual.net>,
>> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Again, irrelevant because it's a matter of advertised
>> > > functionality.
>> >
>> > You keep saying that, but you missed what I think is the most
>> > important point, they do *NOT* advertise that you can do that.. Some
>> > people just assume they can do it, but it doesn't say you can
>> > anywhere.
>>
>> Yes, they do advertise it by implication, when they say that BT is
>> designed for data transfer. This has been pointed out to you more than
>> once.
>
>And data transfers between the headset and the phone when you use a BT
>headset. What? You weren't talking about that kind of data? Neither is
>Verizon, and anything less than an industry expert going on record and
>saying that data does not flow between the phone and the headset is going to
>quickly deflate this action.

Not to mention Dial-Up Networking.

>And as I've already posted twice (and has been
>posted many times by others), Verizon actually states that the type of data
>transfer you are looking for does not exist with them and has stated that
>publicly in their website for quite a long time.

Yep.

>Anybody complaining about this is guilty of sloppy and incomplete research.
>The fact that anyone is trying to hold the company responsible for the basic
>stupidity of others is quite amusing.

Indeed.

--
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 <m4idnSJ1E5VEBGfcRVn-sw@adelphia.com> on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:01:14 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:xxlKd.4185$m31.56060@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <wO2dnWWersmCpmXcRVn-1A@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:52:16 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >... It's like you and Phillippe have morphed
>> >into a single SuperTroll.
>>
>> Yet more mud slinging. I rest my case.

>More avoidance- I rest my case.

Hardly a sin.

>Although I noticed that you chose to respond to this post but ignore the one
>asking you to cite specific examples of expertise you implied possessing.
>Should we consider that lack of silence as a lack of said expertise or the
>inability to admit error?

No, just unwillingness to play your game. You now know that I have testified
as an expert witness in IP. That you came up with so little is your problem,
not mine.

--
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 <1xgomanzasxp1$.ij9uqafbbbxk.dlg@40tude.net> on Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:06:31
GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:39:38 -0700, Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
>> anybody complaining about this is guilty of sloppy and incomplete research.
>> The fact that anyone is trying to hold the company responsible for the basic
>> stupidity of others is quite amusing.
>
>Unfortunately this practice is becoming more common. I'm sure the legal
>community loves the trend! (remember the hot coffee episode at McDonalds?)

It makes a nice sound bite, but that was actually a genuinely serious
incident. <http://www.dewoodlaw.com/mcdonalds.htm>:

MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE --- What Are The Facts?

The now infamous case of a lawsuit against the McDonald's Corporation
for serving dangerously hot coffee generated an extraordinary amount
of public outcry. Everytime I question potential jury members before
a trial, I always hear the same thing. The potential jurors all say
that the civil justice system is out of control and the refer to the
McDonald's case. Then when I question them as to what they really
know about the case, again, I always hear the same thing. All they
know is that a jury awarded $2.7 million in damages to some little
old lady who spilt coffee on herself while driving away from
McDonald's drive through line. Unfortunately, just about none of this
is what happened. Here are the facts:

Fact #1 - For years McDonalds served their coffee up to 40 degrees
hotter than other fast food restaurants. In this way, they could get
more coffee per pound of beans and increase their profits by a few
cents per cup.

Fact #2 - McDonald's coffee was so hot that, if spilled, it could
cause third degree burns, which would burn through skin and down to
the muscle in less than three seconds.

Fact #3 - McDonald's has had over 700 previous claims related to
serious burns from their coffee to their customers, many of whom had
been injured in the genital area, inner thighs, and buttocks areas.
Yet, McDonald's refused to lower the temperature of their coffee.

Fact #4 - The injured (burned) plaintiff in this case, 79 year old
Stella Lieback, was not driving her car. She was seated as the
passenger in her grandson's parked car, holding the coffee cup
between her legs while removing the plastic lid. The cup tipped over
and poured the scalding hot coffee into her lap causing third degree
burns.

Fact #5 - Mrs. Lieback required eight days of hospitalization and
multiple surgeries, including skin grafts as a result of being
scalded by McDonald's coffee.

Fact #6 - Mrs. Lieback only took legal action against McDonald's
after they refused to reimburse her for her medical expenses.

Fact #7 - The jury was so outraged at the arrogance and callousness
of McDonald's that they awarded punitive damages, to punish
McDonald's and to deter McDonald's from such conduct in the future.
They awarded $2.7 million.

Fact #8 - The day after the verdict, McDonald's reduced the
temperature of their coffee.

Fact #9 - The trial judge thought the verdict was too high and
reduced the verdict to about $400,000 at McDonald's request. (This is
one fact that the insurance lawyers and McDonald's corporate lawyers
never mention.)

Now you've got the facts! The system works just fine. McDonald's got
the message.

--
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?)

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:53:27 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE --- What Are The Facts?
>
>Sign of the times.. If you do something stupid, blame someone else and
>sue... never take responsibility for your own actions... <sigh>

Sign of the times... why bother to read the material and understand it
when you can just sneer that someone didn't take responsibility for
"their actions" when they were injured by a defective product and had
to sue to be compensated because the manufacturer of the product
refused to be responsible for THEIR actions. <sigh> indeed.

jc

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

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:35:46 GMT, JC Dill wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:53:27 -0800, "Peter Pan"
> <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE --- What Are The Facts?
>>
>>Sign of the times.. If you do something stupid, blame someone else and
>>sue... never take responsibility for your own actions... <sigh>
>
> Sign of the times... why bother to read the material and understand it
> when you can just sneer that someone didn't take responsibility for
> "their actions" when they were injured by a defective product and had
> to sue to be compensated because the manufacturer of the product
> refused to be responsible for THEIR actions. <sigh> indeed.
>
> jc

The bottom line is:

1. Coffee is supposed to be hot. It wasn't defective, just hot.
2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.
3. Don't spill coffee on yourself. Common sense.

Did McDonalds err in making the coffee very hot? Probably.

Did the lady err in playing with the coffee lid while the cup was near her
body? Yes.

Did I ever spill hot coffee on myself? Yes.

Did I run to the courts or the store where I bought it for satisfaction?
No. I wrote it off as stupidity on my part.