[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <3YKdnXWzws2Rym3cRVn-3A@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:13:39 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:0wJHd.2933$m31.36396@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <0001HW.BE14A408000DD167F03055B0@nntp.charter.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
>> 23:55:52 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:48:05 -0500, John Navas wrote
>> >(in article <p5EHd.2884$m31.35523@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>> >
>> >>> Yet we still can't think of a modern bluetooth phone that does NOT support
>> >>> data transfer.
>> >>>
>> >>> (One may exist, but I've yet to see it)
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>Let me guess- your experience as an expert witness allows this to be a valid
>opinion. Or did your experience as an expert witness apply to copyright
>law? Just whart was the area of expertise that qualified you as an expert
>witness? Can I guess that it was neither of the above?
You can only pursue a case for misrepresentation by showing: (1) statements
with alleged misrepresentation and (2) showing the representations in those
statements to be false or misleading. Since Verizon has disclosed what the
Bluetooth implementation would do, and since there hasn't been any showing of
actual misrepresentation, there can't be a case for misrepresentation.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR
GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Linear Mode
