Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
[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>
Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
"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.
Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <3Zudnd0wfpdEpGXcRVn-gw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:46:49 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:eDTJd.3821$m31.53117@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> In <C-ednbymaYOPxG3cRVn-rA@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:22:16 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >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.
Baloney.
>I have posted in response
>to your own words.
That doesn't make it any less mud slinging.
>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.
That's hardly a sin, and certainly nothing compared to your mud slinging.
>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.
So be skeptical. I'm not interested in responding to pointless challenges,
since it's now clear that you'll simply dismiss whatever I say.
>I've cited the only publicly documented association of your name with
>any legal action,
No, you're just cited the only one you've been able to find.
>... 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? ...
I'm not going to play your game.
>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.
ROTFL. Even if you've actually done that, rather than just make it up, all
you've proved is neither you nor your Princeton professor understand the
serious limitations of that kind of research. My testimony is a matter of
public record, and can be found, but that's not how to do it. I testified in
one of the biggest and most important anti-trust cases, yet you both somehow
missed that. ;-)
>Feel free to refute, although you'll need to cite specific instances that
>can be verified independently.
I'm not going to play your game.
>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.
Pot ... kettle ... ;-)
You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to give
you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant experience,
unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the right
kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:X1ILd.4780$m31.63900@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <3Zudnd0wfpdEpGXcRVn-gw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005
17:46:49 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:eDTJd.3821$m31.53117@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> In <C-ednbymaYOPxG3cRVn-rA@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
18:22:16 -0700,
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> >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.
>
> Baloney.
Says you.
>
> >I have posted in response
> >to your own words.
>
> That doesn't make it any less mud slinging.
Call it what you will.
>
> >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.
>
> That's hardly a sin, and certainly nothing compared to your mud slinging.
Not a sin, but a pretty good measure of credibility.
>
> >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.
>
> So be skeptical. I'm not interested in responding to pointless
challenges,
> since it's now clear that you'll simply dismiss whatever I say.
Its only pointless to you. I believe that is probably due to the absolute
void of expertise you can provide.
>
> >I've cited the only publicly documented association of your name with
> >any legal action,
>
> No, you're just cited the only one you've been able to find
>
> >... 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? ...
>
> I'm not going to play your game.
Of course not- you have nothing to play with.
>
> >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.
>
> ROTFL. Even if you've actually done that, rather than just make it up,
all
> you've proved is neither you nor your Princeton professor understand the
> serious limitations of that kind of research. My testimony is a matter of
> public record, and can be found, but that's not how to do it. I testified
in
> one of the biggest and most important anti-trust cases, yet you both
somehow
> missed that. ;-)
Again, you don't read very well. There is no public record of you
testifying in any case where you were called as an expert in the areas of
copyright law, truth in advertising or contract law. You have been called
in cases where these topics were discussed, but your testimony was in other
areas and you were not called as an expert in any of these three areas. For
you to continue the charade is actually really funny now. I should take
your attitude- I can fill my gas tank, so that makes me an expert at
automotive repair.
>
> >Feel free to refute, although you'll need to cite specific instances that
> >can be verified independently.
>
> I'm not going to play your game.
Again- you can't. You have nothing to play with.
>
> >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.
>
> Pot ... kettle ... ;-)
Oooo- that hurt. Not really, but I guess that was the response you were
looking for.
>
> You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to
give
> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
experience,
> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the
right
> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic.
>
> --
How is the comparison of computer code relevent to anything mentioned here?
You have totally lost your mind- and with a statement like that any
credibility you had left. Is it really your assertion that your testimony
in that case as a computer code expert makes you an expert on any of the
legal areas mentioned above?
Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <U_SdneCMW5WSqp3fRVn-tQ@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:12:49 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:X1ILd.4780$m31.63900@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> Baloney.
>
>Says you.
I do, but then it's patently obvious that you've been mud slinging.
>> That doesn't make it any less mud slinging.
>
>Call it what you will.
I call it what it is.
>> That's hardly a sin, and certainly nothing compared to your mud slinging.
>
>Not a sin, but a pretty good measure of credibility.
No justification for mud slinging.
>> So be skeptical. I'm not interested in responding to pointless challenges,
>> since it's now clear that you'll simply dismiss whatever I say.
>
>Its only pointless to you.
That's all that matters to me.
>I believe that is probably due to the absolute
>void of expertise you can provide.
Believe what you will, true or false.
>> I'm not going to play your game.
>
>Of course not- you have nothing to play with.
How childish.
>> ROTFL. Even if you've actually done that, rather than just make it up, all
>> you've proved is neither you nor your Princeton professor understand the
>> serious limitations of that kind of research. My testimony is a matter of
>> public record, and can be found, but that's not how to do it. I testified in
>> one of the biggest and most important anti-trust cases, yet you both somehow
>> missed that. ;-)
>
>Again, you don't read very well.
You have that backwards.
>There is no public record of you
>testifying in any case where you were called as an expert in the areas of
>copyright law, truth in advertising or contract law.
Not true. That you can't find it simply means that you can't find it.
>You have been called
>in cases where these topics were discussed, but your testimony was in other
>areas and you were not called as an expert in any of these three areas.
Not true.
>For
>you to continue the charade is actually really funny now.
Laugh away. I'm not the one acting silly.
>> I'm not going to play your game.
>
>Again- you can't. You have nothing to play with.
Wrong on both counts.
>> You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to give
>> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant experience,
>> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the right
>> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic.
>How is the comparison of computer code relevent to anything mentioned here?
I didn't say that. Read what I wrote more carefully, and save yourself more
embarrassment.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
newslYLd.4920$m31.64886@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <U_SdneCMW5WSqp3fRVn-tQ@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
19:12:49 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:X1ILd.4780$m31.63900@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> Baloney.
> >
> >Says you.
>
> I do, but then it's patently obvious that you've been mud slinging.
>
> >> That doesn't make it any less mud slinging.
> >
> >Call it what you will.
>
> I call it what it is.
>
> >> That's hardly a sin, and certainly nothing compared to your mud
slinging.
> >
> >Not a sin, but a pretty good measure of credibility.
>
> No justification for mud slinging.
And still a good measurement of credibility.
>
> >> So be skeptical. I'm not interested in responding to pointless
challenges,
> >> since it's now clear that you'll simply dismiss whatever I say.
> >
> >Its only pointless to you.
>
> That's all that matters to me.
>
> >I believe that is probably due to the absolute
> >void of expertise you can provide.
>
> Believe what you will, true or false.
>
> >> I'm not going to play your game.
> >
> >Of course not- you have nothing to play with.
>
> How childish.
>
> >> ROTFL. Even if you've actually done that, rather than just make it up,
all
> >> you've proved is neither you nor your Princeton professor understand
the
> >> serious limitations of that kind of research. My testimony is a matter
of
> >> public record, and can be found, but that's not how to do it. I
testified in
> >> one of the biggest and most important anti-trust cases, yet you both
somehow
> >> missed that. ;-)
> >
> >Again, you don't read very well.
>
> You have that backwards.
>
> >There is no public record of you
> >testifying in any case where you were called as an expert in the areas of
> >copyright law, truth in advertising or contract law.
>
> Not true. That you can't find it simply means that you can't find it.
I stand by my words. You saying different is no good without hard facts.
And the lack of hard facts is very interesting- it almost smacks of the
truth.
>
> >You have been called
> >in cases where these topics were discussed, but your testimony was in
other
> >areas and you were not called as an expert in any of these three areas.
>
> Not true.
Why? Because you say so? You need to do better than that.
>
> >For
> >you to continue the charade is actually really funny now.
>
> Laugh away. I'm not the one acting silly.
I think others would seriously disagree.
>
> >> I'm not going to play your game.
> >
> >Again- you can't. You have nothing to play with.
>
> Wrong on both counts.
Again- prove me wrong.
>
> >> You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought
to give
> >> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
experience,
> >> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the
right
> >> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic.
>
> >How is the comparison of computer code relevent to anything mentioned
here?
>
> I didn't say that. Read what I wrote more carefully, and save yourself
more
> embarrassment.
>
> --
I read it just fine. Your exact words are that this single case "makes it
clear that I have actual relevant experience." There is no connection
between reading computer code and being an expert in any of the areas
mentioned above. I noticed that you did a selective snip of my response to
that- almost like you are ashamed.
Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:2cZLd.4928$m31.64648@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <5PCdnamlF_P1y53fRVn-ug@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
21:26:35 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >newslYLd.4920$m31.64886@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> No justification for mud slinging.
> >
> >And still a good measurement of credibility.
>
> No justification for mud slinging.
>
> >> Not true. That you can't find it simply means that you can't find it.
> >
> >I stand by my words. ...
>
> Which are meaningless, as I've shown.
You've shown nothing, other than a very egotistical and somewhat pathetic
need to be something that you're not.
>
> >> Not true.
> >
> >Why? Because you say so?
>
> Because it's not true.
>
> >> Laugh away. I'm not the one acting silly.
> >
> >I think others would seriously disagree.
>
> There's more than one of you? You mean Jack the Zwick? LOL
Nope- only one of me. The fact that I'm more in line with the trolls than I
am with you on this should be your first clue.
>
> >> Wrong on both counts.
> >
> >Again- prove me wrong.
>
> Since you are the one making the accusations, the burden of proof is on
you,
> not me.
Not anymore- you've made some accusations yourself a little further down
this post.
>
> >> I didn't say that. Read what I wrote more carefully, and save yourself
more
> >> embarrassment.
>
> >I read it just fine.
>
> Obviously not.
The problem is that I didn't interpret it to your staisfaction. I decided I
would take it at face value instead of trying to impose an alternate meaning
to the words.
>
> >Your exact words are that this single case "makes it
> >clear that I have actual relevant experience."
>
> The key work there is "relevant." Read more carefully. And pipe down
unless
> and until you can show any expertise at all in IP.
>
> >There is no connection
> >between reading computer code and being an expert in any of the areas
> >mentioned above.
>
> Wrong again.
No- right again. And unless you can draw a connection between them, you are
doing nothing more than being a troll.
>
> >I noticed that you did a selective snip of my response to
> >that- almost like you are ashamed.
>
> LOL! I'm not the one without any expertise at all.
Apparently you are-you have none that you have enough pride in to post.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
lYLd.4920$m31.64886@typhoon.sonic.net...
Linear Mode
