Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 47 of 47
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by mdavis View Post
    Depending upon how you interpret the text,...
    I'm sorry. I keep reading people bellyaching about this article and someone who can't figure it out is just plainly not reading it. The reference to "see below" only appears for the "might be compatible" case (-00 part number). In the part below, where it lists Rev A,B,C... the picture to the right has two highlighted portions. The part above is where the "Rev" label is. You will note, quite clearly in fact, that the highlighted portion below shows the -00 part number. What part of this is ambiguous? I don't understand how it is ambiguous.
    Attached Images Attached Images
  2. #42  
    Let's just say I wouldn't want you as my lawyer. It says the cradles might be compatible, but you have to look at the Rev section below (" Look at the "Rev" version to check (see below)."

    Then you go to the "Rev section" below, and what does it say, with no qualifications or reference to any exceptions:

    " * Rev A: not compatible with a Treo 680.
    * Rev B: not compatible with a Treo 680.
    * Rev C: You can use this cradle with a Treo 680. "


    Pretty black and white. Read literally, it says A and B are not compatible. If you DON'T look at the "Rev section" but instead go to the Part Number of SKU sections, you get ambiguously conflicting information. But enough said.
  3. #43  
    Who needs a lawyer? You just have to realize that *every* product has a revision. You oversimplify and think that Rev A of any product is suddenly incompatible without reservation? Of course not. Naturally one would wonder "rev A of what product?" Oh, look! They provided a handy picture to the right *showing* you what product number. duh!

    But maybe you ought to check out careers at Palm to see if you can get in and show them how to do it properly. Maybe in their legal department?
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by mdavis View Post
    Let's just say I wouldn't want you as my lawyer. It says the cradles might be compatible, but you have to look at the Rev section below (" Look at the "Rev" version to check (see below)."

    Then you go to the "Rev section" below, and what does it say, with no qualifications or reference to any exceptions:

    " * Rev A: not compatible with a Treo 680.
    * Rev B: not compatible with a Treo 680.
    * Rev C: You can use this cradle with a Treo 680. "


    Pretty black and white. Read literally, it says A and B are not compatible. If you DON'T look at the "Rev section" but instead go to the Part Number of SKU sections, you get ambiguously conflicting information. But enough said.
    I AM a lawyer and I completely agree with Taroliw's interpretation, and the fact that there's really no ambiguity there.
  5. #45  
    So that makes two lawyers I wouldn't go to. I think there's probably a few left for me.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by mdavis View Post
    So that makes two lawyers I wouldn't go to. I think there's probably a few left for me.
    Maybe you should take a look at this thread:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...d.php?t=134495

    Again, it seems pretty clear.
  7. #47  
    Exactly. Clear language needs no explanations or extended discussions. It makes them unnecessary. What do lawyers say? Oh,right. Case closed.
    Last edited by mdavis; 01/20/2007 at 10:44 PM.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions