On Cell Phone Forums
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 68
  1. #1
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    "Michelle Steiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> 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/d...IC&topicID=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.






    See More: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710




  2. #2
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710


    "Michelle Steiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    >
    > 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.





  3. #3
    Tropical Haven
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

    >>>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/d...IC&topicID=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.


    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.

    TH




  4. #4
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
    07:17:32 -0500, SinghaLvr <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:57:48 -0500, John Navas wrote
    >(in article <[email protected]>):
    >
    >>>> 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>



  5. #5
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:13:39 -0700,
    "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
    >> 23:55:52 -0500, SinghaLvr <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:48:05 -0500, John Navas wrote
    >> >(in article <[email protected]>):
    >> >
    >> >>> 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>



  6. #6
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:22:16 -0700,
    "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]


    >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>



  7. #7
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:59:43 -0700,
    "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005

    >20:29:56 -0700,
    >> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >If you feel that my statement was wrong, feel free to point out the errors-
    >> >...

    >>
    >> Been there; done that.
    >>

    >No you haven't- ...


    Actually I have. You just don't like my response.

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



  8. #8
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005

    18:22:16 -0700,
    > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]

    >
    > >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.





  9. #9
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005

    17:59:43 -0700,
    > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005

    > >20:29:56 -0700,
    > >> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >If you feel that my statement was wrong, feel free to point out the

    errors-
    > >> >...
    > >>
    > >> Been there; done that.
    > >>

    > >No you haven't- ...

    >
    > Actually I have. You just don't like my response.
    >
    > --


    Funny- all I saw was a lame attempt at name calling. You have never
    addressed the meat of that post. It's like you and Phillippe have morphed
    into a single SuperTroll.





  10. #10
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710


    "Tropical Haven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    >
    > 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.





  • Phones Discussed Above

    Motorola v710 More Motorola v710 topics Motorola Forum Reviews
  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast