Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1.    #1  
    Has sprint crippled bluetooth features (DUN)?

    Engadget.com
    http://engadget.com/

    Class action lawsuit against Verizon and Bluetooth for crippling Bluetooth on the V710 >
    Related entries: Desktops



    We’ve seen pretty much of every episode of LA Law so usually we feel pretty confident when it comes to holding forth on all matters of a legal nature, but we’re not sure whether the class action suit California law firm Kirtland & Packard has filed against Verizon and Motorola for selling Motorola’s V710 handset with several features of its built-in Bluetooth disabled (like the Dial-Up Networking profile, which let’s you use the phone as a wireless modem,and the ability to wirelessly copy files like digital photos over to a PC) has a leg to stand on or not. Not that it doesn’t feel mighty good to hit back when companies needlessly make their products less useful, but we’re getting into some complicated legal territory about how the phone was represented for sale and all that, and Verizon and Moto (which honestly was just giving Verizon what it asked for in the phone) aren’t exactly going to roll over.

    [Thanks, Sam]
  2. #2  
    Not a chance they'll win. It'll get tossed.
  3.    #3  
    Good to see at least someone taking a stand.
  4. #4  
    Actually, from a legal standpoint crazy suits like this often stand a chance. It's a matter of if Verizon marketed the device as "wireless headset/handsfree" enabled, or bluetooth enabled. Since the device clearly is NOT bluetooth enabled by the definition of the standard this stands a good chance if they have the money to fight it.

    Cases like this mainly come down to who gives in to the cost of paying the legal fees first.

    Personally, I'd just hack the v710 to enable the profiles that are missing... Actually, a co-worker has one and wants me to take a look when he flies in for a day... I doubt it'll be enough time for me to find anything, it'll take me around a week I'd guess. You'd need to build a serial cable to the device, or jtag it. Dump the rom, and find the routines... Heck, it's easy with palm, extremely hard with a normal cell phone...
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowmite
    Personally, I'd just hack the v710 to enable the profiles that are missing... Actually, a co-worker has one and wants me to take a look when he flies in for a day... I doubt it'll be enough time for me to find anything, it'll take me around a week I'd guess. You'd need to build a serial cable to the device, or jtag it. Dump the rom, and find the routines...
    shadow....there's a pretty active hacker community around the Moto V-series. More so for the GSM version, which has been SEEMed to death. The 710 is a little different, but it looks like you should be able to find some ROM images over at HoFo:
    http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...hreadid=513683
  6. #6  
    Pretty interesting concept, but even IF the lawsuit isn't tossed out, chances are there won't be much that'll come from it. Look at the class action lawsuit against Lock/Line insurance for promising to replace phones with identical models or those of equal value, and yet they went and replaced expensive phones with cheap base models. The most anyone got out of that settlement was a prepaid long distance card (which is kind of useless considering as a cell phone user, you nroamlly don't pay for long distance anyway), and millions of dollars in payment to the attorneys who brought the suit.
  7.    #7  
    Usually the attorneys who initiate these class action suits do so understanding they may not win and don't ask for any money unless they win the case. Maybe the attorney has a v710.
    I'd like to see this go for the long haul and change the way corporations make these types of decisions. Consumers drive this business and the corporations need to understand that. We as consumers are up against alot. If we want out early from a service plan; there's a hefty penalty. I'd love to see the day where we can all buy affordable unlocked phones and not have to sign these long term contracts with early penalty fees. If I pay money for anything I want to get what I paid for;
    Best of luck to all involved in this class action suit.

    I'd like to see Sprint or Palm One own up to some of the issues going on with the treo 650; this is a very expensive phone and if not for Shadowmite and co. we'd be an angry bunch over here.
  8. #8  
    I also think the suit doesn't stand a chance to go the way consumers want. Products are sold with features disabled all the time...but usually they cost less. That's in cases where it's more profitable to market the same good as different products by hiding features...as opposed to manufacturing true versions of the different goods. No one has declared that illegal. The best that can come from it is Sprint and the like will have to reduce price on the phone for disabling features and and totally rebrand it to set it apart from what PalmOne sells direclty. Oh and give a "rebate" to the participants in the class action suit which will be watered down by the number of people who make claims.
  9. #9  
    what happen to the thread concerning a possible suit vs Sprint? I belive it was here:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...2+%22sprint%22

    A few members of the forum belived there may a possible lawsuit for suggesting there would be Wi-fi on the t 600. maybe this is possible for th 650? Am I remembering this correctly....
    da Gimp

    Please note: My spelling sucks and I'm to lazy to check it.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by davetheone
    Has sprint crippled bluetooth features (DUN)?

    Engadget.com
    http://engadget.com/

    Class action lawsuit against Verizon and Bluetooth for crippling Bluetooth on the V710 >
    Related entries: Desktops



    We’ve seen pretty much of every episode of LA Law so usually we feel pretty confident when it comes to holding forth on all matters of a legal nature, but we’re not sure whether the class action suit California law firm Kirtland & Packard has filed against Verizon and Motorola for selling Motorola’s V710 handset with several features of its built-in Bluetooth disabled (like the Dial-Up Networking profile, which let’s you use the phone as a wireless modem,and the ability to wirelessly copy files like digital photos over to a PC) has a leg to stand on or not. Not that it doesn’t feel mighty good to hit back when companies needlessly make their products less useful, but we’re getting into some complicated legal territory about how the phone was represented for sale and all that, and Verizon and Moto (which honestly was just giving Verizon what it asked for in the phone) aren’t exactly going to roll over.

    [Thanks, Sam]
    Sue P1? Next thing you know, someone will sue God.
  11. #11  
    BT DUN works fine on the V710, it's OBEX BT file xfer that was disabled (but could be done with the cable). Piece of crap phone as well. I had one for about a week.
  12. #12  
    I think it stands a chance...crippling a technology you're paying for to force you to use their pay-to-use service, something there doesn't sound right.

    They should atleast have to put an * or something when advertising their BT products and something in the fine print stating that profiles ARE disabled and that the full functionality of BT is NOT possible.
  13. #13  
    Verizon never stated the V710 would do OBEX transfers. Just because Bluetooth is CAPABLE of OBEX transfers doesn't mean that any phone that has BT MUST do OBEX transfers. (IMO) Verizon (or any company) can do whatever it wants with any product it sells. The public has the option NOT to buy it if they aren't satisifed. They are given 14 days to decide if they want to keep it or not.

    It's just another bunch of whiners trying to clog up the legal system with frivolous law suits and make the lawyers richer. Worst part is there will surely be some sort of settlement.
    Quote Originally Posted by MFizzel
    I think it stands a chance...crippling a technology you're paying for to force you to use their pay-to-use service, something there doesn't sound right.

    They should atleast have to put an * or something when advertising their BT products and something in the fine print stating that profiles ARE disabled and that the full functionality of BT is NOT possible.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterEd
    Verizon never stated the V710 would do OBEX transfers. Just because Bluetooth is CAPABLE of OBEX transfers doesn't mean that any phone that has BT MUST do OBEX transfers. (IMO) Verizon (or any company) can do whatever it wants with any product it sells. The public has the option NOT to buy it if they aren't satisifed. They are given 14 days to decide if they want to keep it or not.

    It's just another bunch of whiners trying to clog up the legal system with frivolous law suits and make the lawyers richer. Worst part is there will surely be some sort of settlement.
    Agreed. It is not a question of crippling. Bluetooth is, like IRDA before it, only the transport. While it can be used for many applications, none of those applications are implicit in the standard or the name. They were never there to be "crippled." In the case of DUN, even if the device implements it, the carrier need not.
  15. #15  
    There was a hacking contest to see who could get the bluetooth working... much like our Treo 600 Bluetooth, this failed..

    http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/v710hackers.html
    I’m a lucky man to count on both hands
    The ones I love..

    Visor Pro -> Visor Edge -> Treo 180 -> Treo 270 -> Treo 600 -> Treo 650 -> T|T2+SE T68i -> Treo 600 -> T-Mobile MDA -> Treo 755p -> Treo 800w -> Treo 755p -> PALM PRE -> Palm Pre 2 -> HP Palm Pre 3

    Twittering about

Posting Permissions