Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 15:42:52 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Jim <[email protected]> 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.

--
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

---

› See More: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
11:01:46 -0500, SinghaLvr <[email protected]> wrote:

>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. ...

Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:

> Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?

No, but Bluetooth-equipped PDAs and non-crippled Bluetooth-equipped phones
normally can.

The fact that Bluetooth-equipped headsets don't is a red herring.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
13:17:05 -0500, nospam <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:16:15 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> Subject: Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
>> From: John Navas <[email protected]>
>> Date: Today 12:16 PM
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular, alt.cellular.verizon
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
>> 11:01:46 -0500, SinghaLvr <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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. ...
>>
>> Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?
>
>Think man ... computing / data devices ....

Think man ... a phone is not "computing / data devices" ....

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:50:14 -0800, Steve
Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?
>
>No, but Bluetooth-equipped PDAs and non-crippled Bluetooth-equipped phones
>normally can.
>
>The fact that Bluetooth-equipped headsets don't is a red herring.

I disagree. Bluetooth support varies from device to device. If you want a
specific function, then you have an obligation to see if that function is
supported. It's not the responsibility of the seller to anticipate your
expectations. Windows XP SP2 doesn't support the Bluetooth headset profile.
Is Microsoft liable? Your standard is unrealistic and unworkable.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"Quaoar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
---snip---snip---snip---
> This, of course, is going nowhere at high speed
---snip---snip---snip---

Probable true, but think of the bad press and the impression it leaves in
the mind of shoppers.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:13:48 GMT, John Navas wrote:

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

>>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.

The phone marketing descriptions do imply functionality ... thus, let a
JUDGE decide what are reasonable consumer expections.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:50:14 -0800, Steve
> Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
> >
> >> Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?
> >
> >No, but Bluetooth-equipped PDAs and non-crippled Bluetooth-equipped phones
> >normally can.
> >
> >The fact that Bluetooth-equipped headsets don't is a red herring.
>
> I disagree. Bluetooth support varies from device to device. If you want a
> specific function, then you have an obligation to see if that function is
> supported. It's not the responsibility of the seller to anticipate your
> expectations. Windows XP SP2 doesn't support the Bluetooth headset profile.
> Is Microsoft liable? Your standard is unrealistic and unworkable.

You are ignoring what Verizon has posted on their website re: Bluetooth.

"V710: Connectivity via Bluetooth"

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
> 13:17:05 -0500, nospam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:16:15 -0500, John Navas wrote
> >(in article <[email protected]>):
> >
> >> Subject: Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
> >> From: John Navas <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Today 12:16 PM
> >> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular, alt.cellular.verizon
> >>
> >> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan 2005
> >> 11:01:46 -0500, SinghaLvr <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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. ...
> >>
> >> Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?
> >
> >Think man ... computing / data devices ....
>
> Think man ... a phone is not "computing / data devices" ....
>

Then why does Verizon say the following on their 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. "

<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/d...AY&item=_FAQ_T
OPIC&topicID=190#1245>

John Navas wrote:

>>The fact that Bluetooth-equipped headsets don't is a red herring.
>
> I disagree. Bluetooth support varies from device to device. If you want a
> specific function, then you have an obligation to see if that function is
> supported. It's not the responsibility of the seller to anticipate your
> expectations. Windows XP SP2 doesn't support the Bluetooth headset profile.
> Is Microsoft liable? Your standard is unrealistic and unworkable.

I have to say, it's much more often that I agree with you and disagree with
"Jack Zwick" than the other way around, but this time I agree with him.

Microsoft isn't advertising a specific use of BT. It would seem that Verizon
is, and is not providing that particular functionality in their phones.

It's *really* that simple.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
> 2005 15:42:52 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Jim <[email protected]> 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.


You are one stupid ***** for such a "know-it-all"

--
SS

In article <[email protected]>,
"Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <[email protected]> on Fri, 14 Jan
> > 2005 15:42:52 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

You can tell when Navas is unsure of himself. He childishly needs to
stick in an insult.



> >
> > >In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Jim <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
> You are one stupid ***** for such a "know-it-all"


And Navas is wrong, you just have to click through to "Bluetooth", and
there is such an implied promise.

>
> --
> SS

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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:

The only thing that surprises me is why it took so long.

It, to me, appears as a self evident requirement for that device.

A bluetooth connection in a camera moves pictures and video.
A bluetooth connection in a data watch moves files and information.
A bluetooth connection in a video camera moves video/audio files.
A bluetooth connection in a PDA moves raw data that contain address books
and such..

A phone without internal data storage should contain a bluetooth connection
which allows it to move audio (handset) and raw data. (DUN)
Which they do.

A phone with internal data storage and a video camera should have a
bluetooth
Connection that supports movement of audio (handset), raw data. (DUN),
Picture/video files (from camera), and data files (from internal storage).
The last two from the generic object exchange profile.
The profile which Motorola built into the phone,
because it's need was self evident,
But verizon required it's disabling.
And then verizon didn't explicitly state to the customers that
they had disabled a capability that is generally assumed to be required.

All the above devices are limited to what the manufacturer designed into the
phone.
Because the programming that controls the bluetooth device can not be change
by the user.
Even though the bluetooth transceiver could support any type of operation
you could think of.

And because of that, it is a requirement of the seller to anticipate
any requirements, or functions in which the need of their presence is self
evident.
For, they do not give the option to the consumer to change what they forgot.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> Bluetooth support varies from device to device. If you want a
> specific function, then you have an obligation to see if that function is
> supported. It's not the responsibility of the seller to anticipate your
> expectations. Windows XP SP2 doesn't support the Bluetooth headset
> profile.
> Is Microsoft liable? Your standard is unrealistic and unworkable.
>

To try to compare them to a computer's blue tooth connectivity is a fallacy
Microsoft, or Linux... no difference.
I can complain about many thing that Microsoft does,
but that is, beyond a doubt, not one of them.
And to do so is an insult, even to them. :-P
And it is something I will defend them on, without a doubt. :-)

Windows is one of the most flexible, modular, upgradeable, and open
operating systems you can get.
(and still retain licensed control over it)
The only one that beats them out of the openness of windows, is Linux.
They do not have to anticipate what the user wants,
for they give the user full capability to change anything as they desire.

As with all the prestated devices, the bluetooth unit in a computer or palm
pc is capable
of communicating with ANY other blue tooth device, or emulating any other
device.
The only thing that limits it is the firmware in the pre stated devices.
But computers of the palm pc or full computer/laptop variety have no such
limitation
They can be user programmed to support any communications profile, or even
custom profiles..
And with the openness and flexibility of windows, I can make it do anything
i want!

A bluetooth connection in a palm pc or computer can move
video audio, raw data or files of any type.
It can use a bluetooth headset following the generic headset profile.
It can emulate a generic headset for any other bluetooth device.

You can make a full size desk top computer emulate a bluetooth data watch.
To the palm pc, your just moving your files to your data watch, even though
it's actually communicating to your desk top pc.

You can even make your computer/palm pc/laptop emulate a car's hands free
system.
Your cell phone will think you are in the car talking, when it's actually
connecting through
the desktop pc, and the audio is running through the computer's sound
system.

You can even make your laptop emulate a cell phone.
You can even make custom drivers and create non standard bluetooth profiles.

The limit only restricted by the drivers you want to install and the
programs you want to use.
I already know of virtual bluetooth handset programs to that you can put on
your computer.
And various other types of programs to do wacky stuff with blue tooth
connections on PC's.
It will be only time before people make programs to do anything you could
think of with
A blue tooth transceiver on a pc/laptop/palm pc

With the openness of windows, even me, myself,
can write a driver or program to make the bluetooth transceiver do anything.
Microsoft even provides development tools free for the taking, to help
anyone do so.

Back to the cellular phone............
You could also do anything imaginable with the blue tooth transceiver in a
710 phone.
All you have to do is change the firmware with another version
that will use the bluetooth transceiver appropriately.

And if there isn't any firmware that supports the capabilities,
then you will have to make your own firm ware.

As I stated, that is easy with PC's, but it's a bit harder with cell phones,
Verizon is a lot more secretive than Microsoft.
But it is probably what you will need to do.
Or you can sue company that sold it to you, and force them to change it.
Which appears to be what the other people are doing.

If the cell phone operating system was as open as windows,
Five days after the phone come out,
you would have people offering the driver to update the phone,
and enable that capability free of charge.

In article <[email protected]>,
"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote:

> As I stated, that is easy with PC's, but it's a bit harder with cell phones,
> Verizon is a lot more secretive than Microsoft.
> But it is probably what you will need to do.
> Or you can sue company that sold it to you, and force them to change it.
> Which appears to be what the other people are doing.

Or Verizon should clearly state what is and isnt capable with its
Bluetooth implementation.

All I can do about this one is laugh my ass of. Of course, since Verizon
Wireless will have to pay some legal fees for this to some degree, this only
means our prices may rise and we'll never get any competitive promotions at
all. Hey, I'm very close to talking my better half to switch to Cingular. I
forced her to use my friends phone for a few days and she's in love with it.
Then she asks, does Verizon have a phone or phones like this? Then again a
big laugh. Of course not dear...that's Verizon.

Soon...maybe soon I'll be rid of this rotten organization. Even though all
the cellular companies are typical and can't provide any customer service
whatsoever because of the incompetent help at least they have better
promotions and contracts. Man, you really have to love roll over minutes.
Actually, it's minutes that are yours anyway, because you paid for them.

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?tmp...u=/nm/20050113
> /tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>