Cingular threatens Countersuit

Cingular threatens Countersuit

"http://tinyurl.com/ho6es"

Bad move, IMVAIO. You want this whole thing settled quickly and quietly.

A drawn out legal battle will generate a lot of bad publicity for
Cingular, and they're already hurting from all the survey results,
regarding quality of service, from Consumer Reports and JD Power.

They should apologize for what they did to AT&T customers, and offer big
credits versus small refunds, to minimize the settlement cost.

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:49:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <44af0f07$0$96152$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Cingular threatens Countersuit
>
>"http://tinyurl.com/ho6es"
>
>Bad move, IMVAIO. You want this whole thing settled quickly and quietly.

Good for Cingular, IMnoHO.

>A drawn out legal battle will generate a lot of bad publicity for
>Cingular,

Not if it wins, and this may well give pause to these lawyers.

>and they're already hurting from all the survey results,
>regarding quality of service, from Consumer Reports and JD Power.

Not really -- differences are actually very small.

>They should apologize for what they did to AT&T customers, and offer big
>credits versus small refunds, to minimize the settlement cost.

There's nothing to apologize for or compensate.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:a54ua25a7cj9lkarq9envhjuffakgbicvg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:49:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <44af0f07$0$96152$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Cingular threatens Countersuit
>>
>>"http://tinyurl.com/ho6es"
>>
>>Bad move, IMVAIO. You want this whole thing settled quickly and quietly.
>
> Good for Cingular, IMnoHO.

Yeah- threatening to sue your dissatisfied customers is a sure way to win
over the public.

>
>>A drawn out legal battle will generate a lot of bad publicity for
>>Cingular,
>
> Not if it wins, and this may well give pause to these lawyers.

Thank you, Perry Mason.

>
>>and they're already hurting from all the survey results,
>>regarding quality of service, from Consumer Reports and JD Power.
>
> Not really -- differences are actually very small.

Your opinion has been proven false countless times. Quit closing your eyes
in hope that the truth will just disappear.

>
>>They should apologize for what they did to AT&T customers, and offer big
>>credits versus small refunds, to minimize the settlement cost.
>
> There's nothing to apologize for or compensate.
>

Except bad service, poor consideration for existing customers and the
inability to reward customer tenure. All companies should adopt the
philosophy, right John?

Scott wrote:

> Except bad service, poor consideration for existing customers and the
> inability to reward customer tenure. All companies should adopt the
> philosophy, right John?

Remember, Cingular did these things, and there's no real debate that
they did them, because they believed that there was nothing that the
AT&T customers could do about it, an attitude taken by many companies
until hit with a class action lawsuit.

When Verizon did what they did to the Bluetooth capability on the V710,
no doubt they believed that their customers had no recourse--they were
proven wrong.

The attitude of "screw your customers until they sue you," is all too
common. Maybe these companies simply see these lawsuits as part of the
cost of doing business, and feel that the settlements that they are
forced to pay are a better deal than not screwing the customers in the
first place.

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:03:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <44af2e95$0$96193$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Except bad service, poor consideration for existing customers and the
>> inability to reward customer tenure. All companies should adopt the
>> philosophy, right John?
>
>Remember, Cingular did these things, and there's no real debate that
>they did them, because they believed that there was nothing that the
>AT&T customers could do about it, an attitude taken by many companies
>until hit with a class action lawsuit.

On the contrary -- Cingular didn't force anyone to do anything, which is
presumably why the lawsuit had to be based on alleged "deception."

>When Verizon did what they did to the Bluetooth capability on the V710,
>no doubt they believed that their customers had no recourse--they were
>proven wrong.

In fact there was no proof -- there was a token settlement based on
expediency.

>The attitude of "screw your customers until they sue you," is all too
>common. Maybe these companies simply see these lawsuits as part of the
>cost of doing business, and feel that the settlements that they are
>forced to pay are a better deal than not screwing the customers in the
>first place.

There's no evidence of that. Studies actually show the system to be
badly broken:

Class Action Dilemmas
Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
RAND Corporation
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR969.1/index.html>

Class action lawsuits-allowing one or a few plaintiffs to represent
many who seek redress-have long been controversial. The current
controversy, centered on lawsuits for money damages, is characterized
by sharp disagreement among stakeholders about the kinds of suits
being filed, whether plaintiffs' claims are meritorious, and whether
resolutions to class actions are fair or socially desirable.
Ultimately, these concerns lead many to wonder, "Are class actions
worth their costs to society and to business? Do they do more harm
than good?" To describe the landscape of current damage class action
litigation, elucidate problems, and identify solutions, the RAND
Institute for Civil Justice conducted a study using qualitative and
quantitative research methods. The researchers concluded that the
controversy over damage class actions has proven intractable because
it implicates deeply held but sharply contested ideological views
among stakeholders. Nevertheless, many of the political antagonists
agree that class action practices merit improvement. The authors argue
that both practices and outcomes could be substantially improved if
more judges would supervise class action litigation more actively and
scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards more carefully.
Educating and empowering judges to take more responsibility for case
outcomes-and ensuring that they have the resources to do so-can help
the civil justice system achieve a better balance between the public
goals of class actions and the private interests that drive them.

Also...

New Class Action Study
<http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000946.php>

In his new study, Professor Priest looks at the Eisenberg-Miller data
and reaches a very different conclusion, namely, that "class action
litigation is imposing extraordinary costs on American society," that
these high costs have persisted over a long period of time, and that
the case for reform is all the more compelling. Even taking the
Eisenberg-Miller dataset on its own terms, Professor Priest finds the
average class action recovery over the ten-year period they studied
was $138.6 million, which works out to an aggregate class action
recovery averaging $5.13 billion per year.

Moreover, Priest argues that the Eisenberg-Miller data set
significantly understates the overall magnitude of class action
litigation. Eisenberg and Miller only report data taken from published
opinions, and their data set is highly skewed toward securities
litigation, which constitute over half their sample. Over the entire
ten-year period, their data set includes only 9 civil rights class
actions, 23 employment class actions, 22 ERISA class actions, and 7
mass tort class actions. (By comparison, there were 2,133 class action
cases filed in federal courts in 1999 alone. We don't know the number
in state courts, but in 1999 there were 54 class actions filed in just
3 counties, Madison County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Texas; and
Palm Beach County, Florida. See Manhattan Institute Civil Justice
Report 3.)

Professor Priest also emphasizes that Eisenberg and Miller's study
does nothing to challenge some of the main criticisms of class action
litigation, such as the fact that mere certification of a class will
force defendants to settle rather than "betting their company,"
regardless of the evidence. Priest points out, for example, that the
Eisenberg-Miller data set includes the silicone breast litigation,
which settled for $4.2 billion even though strong scientific evidence
showed that breast implants did not cause the illnesses claimed in the
suit (see this Manhattan Institute study by Point of Law friend David
Bernstein).

In sum, Professor Priest finds that the case for class action reform
is strong. He thinks, however, that even though the Class Action
Fairness Act "will help" by "[m]oving class actions involving
significant different-state parties from state to federal courts,"
that ultimately "it is not likely to solve the problems created by
modern class action litigation," which are so entrenched that they
require a broader, more systemic reform.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

My guess is that John Navas was not an AT&T customer put in this
position as his tune would be quite differenet I bet then! And I would
be the slightest bit surprised if he works for cingular and/or is a
staunch Bush supporter.


John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:03:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <44af2e95$0$96193$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
> >Scott wrote:
> >
> >> Except bad service, poor consideration for existing customers and the
> >> inability to reward customer tenure. All companies should adopt the
> >> philosophy, right John?
> >
> >Remember, Cingular did these things, and there's no real debate that
> >they did them, because they believed that there was nothing that the
> >AT&T customers could do about it, an attitude taken by many companies
> >until hit with a class action lawsuit.
>
> On the contrary -- Cingular didn't force anyone to do anything, which is
> presumably why the lawsuit had to be based on alleged "deception."
>
> >When Verizon did what they did to the Bluetooth capability on the V710,
> >no doubt they believed that their customers had no recourse--they were
> >proven wrong.
>
> In fact there was no proof -- there was a token settlement based on
> expediency.
>
> >The attitude of "screw your customers until they sue you," is all too
> >common. Maybe these companies simply see these lawsuits as part of the
> >cost of doing business, and feel that the settlements that they are
> >forced to pay are a better deal than not screwing the customers in the
> >first place.
>
> There's no evidence of that. Studies actually show the system to be
> badly broken:
>
> Class Action Dilemmas
> Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
> RAND Corporation
> <http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR969.1/index.html>
>
> Class action lawsuits-allowing one or a few plaintiffs to represent
> many who seek redress-have long been controversial. The current
> controversy, centered on lawsuits for money damages, is characterized
> by sharp disagreement among stakeholders about the kinds of suits
> being filed, whether plaintiffs' claims are meritorious, and whether
> resolutions to class actions are fair or socially desirable.
> Ultimately, these concerns lead many to wonder, "Are class actions
> worth their costs to society and to business? Do they do more harm
> than good?" To describe the landscape of current damage class action
> litigation, elucidate problems, and identify solutions, the RAND
> Institute for Civil Justice conducted a study using qualitative and
> quantitative research methods. The researchers concluded that the
> controversy over damage class actions has proven intractable because
> it implicates deeply held but sharply contested ideological views
> among stakeholders. Nevertheless, many of the political antagonists
> agree that class action practices merit improvement. The authors argue
> that both practices and outcomes could be substantially improved if
> more judges would supervise class action litigation more actively and
> scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards more carefully.
> Educating and empowering judges to take more responsibility for case
> outcomes-and ensuring that they have the resources to do so-can help
> the civil justice system achieve a better balance between the public
> goals of class actions and the private interests that drive them.
>
> Also...
>
> New Class Action Study
> <http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000946.php>
>
> In his new study, Professor Priest looks at the Eisenberg-Miller data
> and reaches a very different conclusion, namely, that "class action
> litigation is imposing extraordinary costs on American society," that
> these high costs have persisted over a long period of time, and that
> the case for reform is all the more compelling. Even taking the
> Eisenberg-Miller dataset on its own terms, Professor Priest finds the
> average class action recovery over the ten-year period they studied
> was $138.6 million, which works out to an aggregate class action
> recovery averaging $5.13 billion per year.
>
> Moreover, Priest argues that the Eisenberg-Miller data set
> significantly understates the overall magnitude of class action
> litigation. Eisenberg and Miller only report data taken from published
> opinions, and their data set is highly skewed toward securities
> litigation, which constitute over half their sample. Over the entire
> ten-year period, their data set includes only 9 civil rights class
> actions, 23 employment class actions, 22 ERISA class actions, and 7
> mass tort class actions. (By comparison, there were 2,133 class action
> cases filed in federal courts in 1999 alone. We don't know the number
> in state courts, but in 1999 there were 54 class actions filed in just
> 3 counties, Madison County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Texas; and
> Palm Beach County, Florida. See Manhattan Institute Civil Justice
> Report 3.)
>
> Professor Priest also emphasizes that Eisenberg and Miller's study
> does nothing to challenge some of the main criticisms of class action
> litigation, such as the fact that mere certification of a class will
> force defendants to settle rather than "betting their company,"
> regardless of the evidence. Priest points out, for example, that the
> Eisenberg-Miller data set includes the silicone breast litigation,
> which settled for $4.2 billion even though strong scientific evidence
> showed that breast implants did not cause the illnesses claimed in the
> suit (see this Manhattan Institute study by Point of Law friend David
> Bernstein).
>
> In sum, Professor Priest finds that the case for class action reform
> is strong. He thinks, however, that even though the Class Action
> Fairness Act "will help" by "[m]oving class actions involving
> significant different-state parties from state to federal courts,"
> that ultimately "it is not likely to solve the problems created by
> modern class action litigation," which are so entrenched that they
> require a broader, more systemic reform.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On 8 Jul 2006 16:49:36 -0700, "ArtistPA" <ladydoc@rcn.com> wrote in
<1152402576.657731.42150@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>:

>My guess is that John Navas was not an AT&T customer put in this
>position as his tune would be quite differenet I bet then! And I would
>be the slightest bit surprised if he works for cingular and/or is a
>staunch Bush supporter.

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who
do not have evidence will attack the man.'

In fact I have no connection to Cingular, and I didn't vote for Bush,
not that it has any relevance.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>