View Poll Results: Do you care that your Treo 800w (or Treo Pro) is WiFi Certified?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 15.00%
  • No

    34 85.00%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 67
  1. klmsu19's Avatar
    Posts
    103 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    So when it comes to actual liability, the maker of the device who warrants against defects is accountable, Palm.
    Actually product liability law is a little more complicated than that. Sprint WOULD actually be partially liable since they promote and sell the product even though Palm would be more so for manufacturing it. they are both liable for a marketing defect as well as a possible manufacturing defect
  2. #42  
    well sprint service seems to be very good in my areas that i travel in MA so i would have to say that i do not care.
    the evdo rev-a is plenty for me
  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by klmsu19 View Post
    Actually product liability law is a little more complicated than that. Sprint WOULD actually be partially liable since they promote and sell the product even though Palm would be more so for manufacturing it. they are both liable for a marketing defect as well as a possible manufacturing defect
    Electronics companies all over are currently selling the 800w and using the same statements in their marketing. (As I've shown in earlier comments in this thread.) Whatever blame can be put on the sellers pales in comparison. Considering actual settled cases, it appears Palm carries the greatest burden. I have not found cases to show that sellers endures any burden at all in cases such as this.

    Perhaps you can cite some cases showing the seller being held to some level of legal accountability with the manufacturer?

    Given Sprint puts their brand on the device, do you have any actual cases to cite that Sprint has been held accountable for defects in device marketing in the past? I've found cases where the manufacturer was cited as being liable, but none where the carrier was liable.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by klmsu19 View Post
    Actually product liability law is a little more complicated than that. Sprint WOULD actually be partially liable since they promote and sell the product even though Palm would be more so for manufacturing it. they are both liable for a marketing defect as well as a possible manufacturing defect
    But that is not the same product liability from the perspective of consumer law, at least not in the body of decisions.

    Liabilities abound. Especially given we don't know the cause of the Standalone failure. With the 800w Standalone GPS failure looking at most foreseeable causes, those tertiary liabilities are subrogations or suits Palm would make against its suppliers. The consumer relationship is still primarily with Palm.

    For example if a spec Palm had specified was not carried out by the contracted manufacture plant or third party design firm, there are not cases where the consumer would have any recourse to the those third parties. In cases like that is the Palm. Example: If your Treo Pro case is cracking, is palm sending you off to HTC for recourse? (and HTC sending you off to the plastics supplier?) NO. It is up to Palm to get recourse from HTC for the cracked Treo cases, and perhaps HTC to take their plastics supplier to task (if it is a material failure and not design error). In consumer law Palm has the liability to the consumer.

    Sprint's liability is complicated. There are cases where Sprint would have zero liability. If you check findlaw and lexis you see lots of successful (adjudicated and settled) suits against makers, where the seller, even presumably repeating the makers advertising assertions to function is not jointly or directly sued by the consumer.

    If the calculator were not working on the 800w, would that really merit a suit against Sprint? Sprint is technically a retailer of this device. We know it is more complicated than that because they certify it works on their networks. But I expect as a reasonable consumer for Sprint to have tested the network functions. The Standalone GPS, like the calculator is a non network function. So really I think Sprint's main legal responsibility begins and ends with the question of whether they stipulated the disabling of Standalone GPS. It is possible, but right now we have no evidence, material or logical that they did stipulate the disabling.


    From everything I have read and all the case law, the primary liability for missing feature is without a doubt the maker. In this case Sprint has a stronger than normal relationship with the maker, involving testing of network function, and more importantly the Sprint mark, which we could argue constitutes co-branding.

    Let's -- for the sake of sanity and good will -- though separate the legal liabilities from the practical interest of the buyers.

    I agree there needs to be pressure on Sprint, and that pressure, why not, could include an assertion of secondary legal liability. After all Sprint is a big distributor of Palm and in the case of the 800w, the only distributor besides Palm's own direct sales. There is another important reason for a secondary pressure on Sprint, which is that these devices are sold on contract, where the invoice cost is lower than replacement and the real cost is a fraction of replacement. If Palm returns net cost to customers who demand return, what would that be? $150 after all contract resigning discounts, credits rebates, etc. $350 actual invoice cost? $600 replacement cost since the discounts are only every two years and were used and won't be re-offered by Sprint?

    But what we really want is to see a solution. If we feel enough attention isn't being paid to assigning resources to that, (and I would argue given the increasingly short life cycles of consumer electronics, four months is a lot of time), legal pressure, can help. Legal pressure does not mean we have to actually engage in a lawsuit. Pressure can be as simple as rational people who are assertive about their rights raising it as a possibility -- an alternative to inaction by Palm and for that matter, Sprint.

    Besides one person suggesting we can only sue Qualcomm, I think we are all on the same page. We don't want to sue anyone. We want to assert our rights as consumers, we want to assert that bizzare, contradictory and incorrect definitions of standalone functionality are unacceptable as a solution, and all of this goes to one target, getting Palm to devote resources to fix it, and Sprint, as much more than an ordinary retailer, to pressure Palm to fix it as well.
    Last edited by aero; 11/14/2008 at 12:34 PM.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    So really I think Sprint's main legal responsibility begins and ends with the question of whether they stipulated the disabling of Standalone GPS. It is possible, but right now we have no evidence, material or logical that they did stipulate the disabling.
    Sprint doesn't request that phones GPS be locked down. That's typically a Verizon trick.


    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    I think we are all on the same page. We don't want to sue anyone. We want to assert our rights as consumers, we want to assert that bizzare, contradictory and incorrect definitions of standalone functionality are unacceptable as a solution, and all of this goes to one target, getting Palm to devote resources to fix it, and Sprint, as much more than an ordinary retailer, to pressure Palm to fix it as well.
    Agreed.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by klmsu19 View Post
    Actually product liability law is a little more complicated than that. Sprint WOULD actually be partially liable since they promote and sell the product even though Palm would be more so for manufacturing it. they are both liable for a marketing defect as well as a possible manufacturing defect
    Sprint also had to approve of all ROM updates to the 800w. Since the device's main function is designed to work on Sprint's network, Palm is bound by the requirement to meet Sprint's standards and approval.

    Assuming any GPS fix has to be at the radio/ROM level (i.e. it's not a simple registry fix, a very plausible asusmption), Palm cannot roll out any fix until Sprint approves via their internal testing.

    Yet another reason why Sprint is a main player here as they and they alone give the final green light on the device. They can demand changes, approve changes, disapprove of changes and rescind the device plus support from their lineup. Only Sprint here can order the device to be made, released and declare it EOL.

    No other reseller, including Palm itself, has that power.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Considering actual settled cases, it appears Palm carries the greatest burden. I have not found cases to show that sellers endures any burden at all in cases such as this.

    Perhaps you can cite some cases showing the seller being held to some level of legal accountability with the manufacturer?
    http://www.dcthornton.com/2005/01/17...er-v710-phone/

    Verizon Wireless misled customers about the capabilities of an expensive new cellphone and disabled many of the handset’s key features in order to charge higher fees for its own services, a lawsuit alleges.
    The suit, filed Dec. 30 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, claims the nation’s second-largest mobile phone provider promoted the v710 handset made by Motorola Inc. as its only model equipped with so-called Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth enables phones and other devices such as computers and personal digital assistants to communicate wirelessly with each other over short distances.

    But, the suit alleges, Verizon never turned on many of the handset’s key features such as the ability to transfer data between the phone and a computer. [...]

    The suit, which asks for unspecified damages, was filed by two California residents: Grant Opperman of Dublin and Timothy Davis of Bakersfield. It asks the court for class-action status, noting that many of Verizon’s 42 million customers may have bought the phones.
    You can't claim a phone has certain functionality and then not give it. That's known as false advertising, and it applies. Now Sprint could argue in court that it was unintentional, and a judge may reduce or even remove (unlikely) any settlement. In the lawsuit again Verizon it was pretty clear that they intentionally requested that the phones be locked down.


    And what did they (the people sueing) win?

    Verizon Wireless has announced a settlement in the class action lawsuit brought by people who purchased the Motorola V710 under the impression that its Bluetooth profile allowed a full range of features (it instead just supported a wireless headset). If you got a V710 through Verizon on or before January 31, 2005 you're entitled to $25 service credit or waived service cancellation fees.
    $25 bucks! Hey, back in 2005 dollars that's some REAL money!




    Considering there's about seven billion results on lawsuits on Google for/against cell companies (mostly suits over patents, the wonders of innovation ), it's very difficult to find specific lawsuits. But anyway, there's one example.
    Last edited by Ebag333; 11/14/2008 at 02:52 PM.
  8. Minsc's Avatar
    Posts
    967 Posts
    Global Posts
    974 Global Posts
    #48  
    Well, if being "WiFi certified" means that it can support WPA-AES or WPA2 protocols, then yes I absolutely care. I have 2 WM devices with WiFi and neither can support WPA-AES. (Sprint 6700 and Dell Axim x30) Makes we want to chuck them out the window...

    Can anyone with an 800w confirm that these protocols are supported?
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    http://www.dcthornton.com/2005/01/17...er-v710-phone/



    You can't claim a phone has certain functionality and then not give it. That's known as false advertising, and it applies. Now Sprint could argue in court that it was unintentional, and a judge may reduce or even remove (unlikely) any settlement. In the lawsuit again Verizon it was pretty clear that they intentionally requested that the phones be locked down.


    And what did they (the people sueing) win?



    $25 bucks! Hey, back in 2005 dollars that's some REAL money!




    Considering there's about seven billion results on lawsuits on Google for/against cell companies (mostly them suits over patents, the wonders of innovation ), it's very difficult to find specific lawsuits. But anyway, there's one example.
    That example does not necessarily fit what we are speaking about here. If Sprint mandated the GPS be crippled, than yes that is totally applicable and I would have said myself Sprint is very liable. However, we have no knowledge of Sprint mandating the lock down as you said yourself:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Sprint doesn't request that phones GPS be locked down. That's typically a Verizon trick.
    So based on history, we assume Sprint likely did not mandate the GPS be crippled to need their signal to get going.

    What we have, is a situation, where the manufacturer (Palm) released a device with certain specification (stand alone GPS and aGPS) and as far as we know the seller (Sprint) did nothing to inhibit functionality in that regard. As far as we know, the seller has simply regurgitated the specifications of the manufacturer. Therefore, the case you cited may not be of any relative merit.

    I need you folks to find me a real case, that is actually applicable.
  10.    #50  
    And what was the original sales price of the v710 mentioned in that case? Depending on that, $25 might be a substantial percentage of the cost of the device, especially considering most customers probably didn't pay full price. What was the subsidized price?

    If Sprint (Palm or anybody) gave us $50 off our next bill, that's 20% of the subsidized price of the Treo 800w ($250). That is a very significant amount to me.

    If Verizon customers paid about $125 for the v710, at $25 off their bill they made out pretty good for their hassle in my opinion.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Sprint doesn't request that phones GPS be locked down. That's typically a Verizon trick.
    Agreed, of course not. We know the Touch pro isn't blocked on Sprint. That is why we are focusing on Palm. Really the the thing of Palm saying "Talk to Sprint" in response to this had to do with the Palm's incorrect and conflicting warranty information on the web site.

    There are quite a number of potential causes. I think we all agree an intentional block by Sprint is one of the least likely causes. And we all can agree Verizon's walled garden model is very bad for consumers, especially ones like us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    http://www.dcthornton.com/2005/01/17...er-v710-phone/
    And what did they (the people sueing) win?
    25 bucks! Hey, back in 2005 dollars that's some REAL money!
    Considering there's about seven billion results on lawsuits on Google for/against cell companies (mostly them suits over patents, the wonders of innovation ), it's very difficult to find specific lawsuits. But anyway, there's one example.
    That isn't relevant cite. That is a walled garden lock down by the provider itself. A more relevant cite would be Palm vs Palza, a $75 to $50 settlement.

    Palza involved hardware and software failings. It was from a device made by HTC and sold by Sprint. Incidently, Neither Sprint nor HTC were named in the suit.

    I want to say I have respect for your many positive contributions to WM utility and on the Palm. And for the good and valauble advice thought many questions on other topics here.

    The point of the specter of a $ 25, or $50 or $75 award is not so we can get a few cups of coffee or a GPS puck, but the multiplier by the number of users to serve as an impetus to address the false advertising by fixing the issue or not false advertise again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    Sprint also had to approve of all ROM updates to the 800w. Since the device's main function is designed to work on Sprint's network, Palm is bound by the requirement to meet Sprint's standards and approval.
    Assuming any GPS fix has to be at the radio/ROM level (i.e. it's not a simple registry fix, a very plausible asusmption), Palm cannot roll out any fix until Sprint approves via their internal testing.
    Yet another reason why Sprint is a main player here as they and they alone give the final green light on the device. They can demand changes, approve changes, disapprove of changes and rescind the device plus support from their lineup. Only Sprint here can order the device to be made, released and declare it EOL.
    No other reseller, including Palm itself, has that power.
    And Sprint has more power, economic power. They are a huge retailer of Palm product.

    But first I don't think that the device is only a Sprint network device. That is the root the difference between a $100 phone and a $600 wm/pda/smartphone.

    One could argue that the difference is the $300 or $400 or $500 worth of things you can do off network. In fact the device has a ton of residual value when we retire it from Sprint. Looking down the list of advertised feature the majority have nothing to do with Sprint.

    There is another problem in the way the above logic follows. IN fact you can buy this product from Palm directly. You can pick up the phone, call Palm, buy it from them, and do so with no use of Sprint and no contract. From a product liability standpoint all the advertised non network functions would have to work or Palm with have 100% liability. If the calculator did not work as advertised Sprint would have 0% responsibility and Palm would have 100%. Same arguably for WiFi, and Standalone GPS.

    Without rejecting your position in total, Standalone GPS unambiguously addresses Sprint dependence quite specifically. It means there is none.

    Again in the suit against Palm settled earlier this year, Sprint, Verizon and HTC weren't even named
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    That example does not necessarily fit what we are speaking about here. If Sprint mandated the GPS be crippled, than yes that is totally applicable and I would have said myself Sprint is very liable. However, we have no knowledge of Sprint mandating the lock down as you said yourself:

    So based on history, we assume Sprint likely did not mandate the GPS be crippled to need their signal to get going.

    What we have, is a situation, where the manufacturer (Palm) released a device with certain specification (stand alone GPS and aGPS) and as far as we know the seller (Sprint) did nothing to inhibit functionality in that regard. As far as we know, the seller has simply regurgitated the specifications of the manufacturer. Therefore, the case you cited may not be of any relative merit.

    I need you folks to find me a real case, that is actually applicable.
    That case is 100% applicable.

    Remember, this is Sprints device. How many other carriers offer the 800w? Who's logo is most prominent on the phone?

    Sprint advertised that the 800w offers both standalone and assisted GPS. Sprint (not Palm) sold you the device. Sprint ordered the device to their specs, not Palm--otherwise Sprint would have sold the 800w with WM6.

    Actually WM6 is a perfect example of how much control the carrier has over the manufacturer. Palm lost tons of money developing the phone for WM6, and then having to move to WM6.1. There's a significant difference between 6 and 6.1 (I know, I've been deep into the guts of both ) that means it's not just a quick and easy port.

    As I said, Sprint may be able to (possible successfully) argue that it was unintentional false advertising, but it's still false advertising. As such, the Verizon case is for all intents and purposes the same, Verizon advertised a feature that the v710 did not have. The only possible difference is intent (Verizon intended for the v710 to be locked down where Sprint most likely did not not). If you remove intentions from the equation, you have the same case, just replace "Verizon" with "Sprint", and "Bluetooth" with "GPS".

    If there was a lawsuit against Sprint for this, and lawyer who has an ounce of experience would reference the Verizon suit to the judge. There is an extremely clear precedence there. It would be up to the judge to determine if the intentions of Sprint would be enough to go with a different verdict.

    There's manslaughter and there is unintentional manslaughter, but in many states in the Union both will land you in prison. Just because you didn't mean for it to happen doesn't mean you didn't commit the act.

    You can't find a more perfect example of what you were asking for than that Darnell.



    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    And what was the original sales price of the v710 mentioned in that case? Depending on that, $25 might be a substantial percentage of the cost of the device, especially considering most customers probably didn't pay full price. What was the subsidized price?

    If Sprint (Palm or anybody) gave us $50 off our next bill, that's 20% of the subsidized price of the Treo 800w ($250). That is a very significant amount to me.

    If Verizon customers paid about $125 for the v710, at $25 off their bill they made out pretty good for their hassle in my opinion.
    The Motorola V710 is expected to be available at Verizon Wireless stores in August 2004 for $249 after a $70 rebate with a two-year service agreement.
    So relatively close to the 800w, which is in the $250-300 price range after rebates as well.



    And back on the original post/topic, now that the poll is nearing a month old, are you willing to admit that the vast majority (darn near 90%) don't care about the Wifi cert?
    Last edited by Ebag333; 11/14/2008 at 03:15 PM.
  13.    #53  
    Ebag333 - There is something you're missing in this, but no, not a single case you've cited is applicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    The only possible difference is intent (Verizon intended for the v710 to be locked down where Sprint most likely did not not).
    That's the whole case right there, no matter how much you try and water it down.

    If you remove intentions from the equation, you have the same case, just replace "Verizon" with "Sprint", and "Bluetooth" with "GPS".
    You can't remove the intentions from the case. If the intentions are removed and Verizon never asked for the device to be locked down, Verizon would have never been the party sued. This is the essential fact you are either missing or intentionally attempting to obfuscate.

    You can't find a more perfect example of what you were asking for than that Darnell.
    I think you're missing my point, you'll never find a case that meets the terms I've noted:

    What we have, is a situation, where the manufacturer (Palm) released a device with certain specification (stand alone GPS and aGPS) and as far as we know the seller (Sprint) did nothing to inhibit functionality in that regard. As far as we know, the seller has simply regurgitated the specifications of the manufacturer.
    Because sellers don't end up losing such cases, so those bringing lawsuits don't go after the seller in cases where the seller had no hand in the creation of a device that does not meet specifications.

    You can't return to me, the question I've posed to you as my own object lesson. That proves my point and refutes yours. The fact you know you can't find better bolsters my point.

    And back on the original post/topic, now that the poll is nearing a month old, are you willing to admit that the vast majority (darn near 90%) don't care about the Wifi cert?
    Guess you're left with nothing else to target me with. I have no problem with the poll results.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Minsc View Post
    Well, if being "WiFi certified" means that it can support WPA-AES or WPA2 protocols, then yes I absolutely care. I have 2 WM devices with WiFi and neither can support WPA-AES. (Sprint 6700 and Dell Axim x30) Makes we want to chuck them out the window...
    I dunno what that cert gives you, but I don't think it requires the support you mention.
    Quote Originally Posted by Minsc View Post
    Can anyone with an 800w confirm that these protocols are supported?
    This is what is supported, so yes.
    • WEP
    • WPA
    • WPA2
    • 802.1x authentication
    • EAP-TTLS
    • EAP-TLS
    • EAP-PEAP


    On to other things: intent in false advertising is not the main focus of a false advertising case and is in fact, irrelevant.

    Evidence must be obtained for what consumers saw the ad saying, and for the materiality of that, and for the true facts about the advertised item, but no evidence is required that actual deception occurred, or that reliance occurred, or that the advertiser intended to deceive or knew that the claim was false.
    Last edited by Malatesta; 11/14/2008 at 03:40 PM.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post

    The point of the specter of a $ 25, or $50 or $75 award is not so we can get a few cups of coffee or a GPS puck, but the multiplier by the number of users to serve as an impetus to address the false advertising by fixing the issue or not false advertise again.
    It also reflects the fact the customer paid money up front for a missing feature. And that award usually is relational to the amount LESS the device would have sold for, if customers knew about the issue(s) up front. If customers knew about the v710 issues up front, it probably would have needed to be marketed for about $25 less.

    The Treo 800w is the most expensive smart phone Palm is selling and the most expensive Sprint is currently selling too. It certainly would not be if priced to its true feature set, that only includes aGPS.
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post

    On to other things: intent in false advertising is not the main focus of a false advertising case and in fact is almost irrelevant.
    Well than you folks find me the case, where Sprint sold a defective device, that they did nothing to introduce the defect in and Sprint rather than the device manufacturer was sued and lost?

    If Sprint played no role in the Treo 800w only having aGPS, if the lawsuit we are not pressing for occurred, you won't find Sprint named as a losing party, just Palm.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Well than you folks find me the case, where Sprint sold a defective device, that they did nothing to introduce the defect in and Sprint rather than the device manufacturer was sued and lost?
    I don't need to find you a case when I just showed you the law.

    You need to show a false advertising case that hinged on intent.

    Advertisements that contain representations that are false, misleading, or deceptive are illegal under state and federal laws. To be found guilty of false advertising, it must be shown that the advertisement was deceptive in nature. Proof that the ad actually harmed anyone is not important. Moreover, the intentions of the advertiser are irrelevant, including if the false or deceptive advertisement was a mistake.
    Ebag was right: the Verizon case is very applicable and is an exact parallel. The fact that Verizon intentionally did what it did was irrelevant to the case as far as guilt is concerned. It may play a role in awards though, which is more arbitrary.
    Last edited by Malatesta; 11/14/2008 at 04:02 PM.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    IOn to other things: intent in false advertising is not the main focus of a false advertising case and is in fact, irrelevant.
    That is is a 30 second wikipedia, cut and paste law expert, rather than a findlaw or even US law 101 type. That is why your statements are confused and confusing.

    The issue Darnell is raising with intent on Verizon went to the culpability of Verizon and not Motorola in the case (if you bothered to read any of the Verizon case filings, and I know you and Ebag didn't from your misrepresentation of the case.)

    Do you know this case? You know it was mainly a civil (tort) fraud case right? It didn't just charge deceptive and negligent advertising, but centered on an intent based charge of civil fraud.

    Here is the kicker: As soon as the complaints about the missing 710 function came in, Verizon publicly and proactively proclaimed THEY, Verizon, ordered Motorola to disable the specifically functions in question. (they claimed for security reasons and to protect content providers interests, the plaintiffs charged the underlying reason was to force alternative paid service, which Verizon did specifically offer.)

    You are also using terms like guilt for tort law as well. And this makes no sense either. In tort law you prove a tort and a loss.

    The fact is that Palm has been successfully sued in the past. In the latest successful consumer suit Palm only, not HTC or Verizon or Sprint were even named.

    Please read the filings in a case before trying to instruct anyone.

    Unless you are saying that Sprint has issued a public statement saying the Ordered Palm to remove a previously functioning feature and we all missed it?
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    I don't need to find you a case when I just showed you the law.
    But it isn't the applicable law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    You need to show a false advertising case that hinged on intent.
    Considering you cited a civil fraud case, that is a funny request.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    Ebag was right: the Verizon case is very applicable and is an exact parallel.
    you and ebag are suggesting that Sprint and/or Palm committed Fraud? Wow.
  20. #60  
    My only concern here is with the notion "false advertising" and whether or not Sprint is accountable as much as Palm.

    The answer would appear to be "yes" (not withstanding an actual court case), regardless of Sprint's intent.

    I stand by that and my earlier post.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions