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 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 67 of 67
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    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.
    Malatesta I agree with you on many points. I think that post is informed, illuminating. I think Palm still holds the primary liablity in this case, but I do agree that post makes important point.

    I really have a lot of respect and publicly here give props to you and to ebag for many valuable posts on other subjects. Some of what you have on this subject is valuable as well.

    I feel very bad about a post months ago that either I misworded, or you misunderstood, with my view on how reviewers who might be changing handsets every few months instead of every two years might feel about deficiencies vs the average buyers. You clarified that unlike most reviewers you are vested like the rest of us and in it for the long haul. So on a personal level and publicly I want to say that if there was any ethical implication in that I am sorry and that was in no way my intent. Nor was or is it my belief.

    Nor do I think you are a fan boy, an apologist or anything of the sort. You are a guy with a mountain of knowledge who shares it to everyone's benifit. Thank you!

    Why don't you look at what has happened on this issue.There are many users interested in this. All? no. Most? probably not? Is it a niche? Yes. But are more than 20 people who have expressed expectation it would work as advertised you have to consider that that niche may have specifically waited for this function, and been put over the tipping point on buying to get it.
    I travel in Europe a couple months out of the year. I am not on OPM. I have my own business. I have a dumb Euro GSM phone for that and as you can imagine a WiFi Standalone GPS PDA as my main US phone has immense utility for me overseas. And I think know it would be my expectation, as it was from your definition your expectation, that Standalone GPS means it would work outside of the US for GPS as well as almost all its other functions.

    We've heard we shouldn't expect to use the 800w in the "Jungle," we've heard "get a dedicated device" ( when we just bought a multifunction device), and we have heard from Palm they were working on it only to get that faq which is in opposition to what you yourself has published on agps vs gps. (and in oppsition to what Sprint senior engineers dealing with GPS in writing have stated what autonomous or Standalone GPS is "no contact with the network" "no dependency on Network at all").

    We have all made little errors of fact in this. It isn't about the Gotcha game that just went on. I have been saying, accurately, that the great near complete body of case law points to Palm. A cite was given on a provider. In that case, before it was even filed, the provider insisted they had the function in question removed. Verizon stated Motorola had it working and that they, Verizon, had it disabled.

    I do agree it is a hybrid situation with Sprint. I agree with you about the rom. But I think you would agree that this function is just not a normal off network function, but actually the one where the very existence and utility is explicitly off network. That is the advantage of standalone. You yourself know and have written of that advantage.

    I tried to state we are all actually on roughly the on the same page a few posts back. I still think so.

    I think the primary culpability is Palms from what we know. I think Sprint also has a responsibility. As you said, more than most resellers. But I am unware of a case where rom approval gave liability, but I am aware of thousands of cases where the maker is the primary liability holder for adverting on its products.

    The exercise is not about getting $50 from Palm (and I am conficent that could be done). It is about the frankly very real specter of legal action, in order to get Palm to fix it, or Sprint to get Palm to fix it, or Palm to fix it and Sprint to approve it. Failing that, if it is unfixable, I think were would all appreciate no future maker claiming "Standalone GPS" when they really mean "Not standalone GPS" as acceptance of their Faq would mean.
    Last edited by aero; 11/14/2008 at 07:07 PM.
  2. #62  
    Aero,

    Thanks for those words, I appreciate it.

    I think we are on the same page as nowhere do I deny Palm's responsibility in this situation.

    I do place probably more emphasis on the carriers since I see them as ultimately being responsible for this device: they order them, sell them, put their names on them, etc. We are just attacking the problem from different ends.

    Granted, this is Palm's to fix but even if they want to Sprint is the one in the end who gives them the green light to fix. (Then there is the whole Qualcomm angle, another company who's practices I do not care for). Definitely too many cooks in the kitchen.

    I also think Palm will address this in a ROM update but since they only really get one shot at that, they have to wait till Sprint (and Palm) collect and identify all bugs, fix, test, certify etc. But we'll wait and see on that one.

    In the end, a false-advertising case against both companies would be an appropriate means, as from what I understand the purpose is not to punish the offenders but to prevent it from happening again.

    I agree there is too much confusion and waving of the hands in this industry. Dieter and I have argued extensively for carriers to step back and out of the picture in terms of smartphones (like AT&T did with the iPhone). Sprint has become better in this, but there is still progress to be made. Verizon OTOH, looks like it won't change.

    WMExperts: News, Reviews & Podcasts + Twitter
  3. #63  
    Thank you for understanding, I am really sorry this became so heated.

    I do not think this device has anywhere near the number of flaws, broken promises and vacant hype that characterized say the iphone or the instinct.

    I think there is also a cultural misunderstanding. There are guys here who are tinkerers, aficionados, who follow the shows, see the promises, many broken delayed and want to put problems in perspective. Some of you guys like Ebag, are dumping the roms, producing elegant and difficultly won hacks/workarounds.

    [To some degree ebag is speaking Chinese and I and others are speaking Greek about the "initialization." From a technical point of view he is focusing on initialization which is what Palm claims is the problem. From the point of view of attempting a workaround he is focused on that as the claimed single missing piece in an otherwise working system. But as I would hope he would understand that when it goes beyond the workaround or bug fix intellectual and I hope functional inquiry he is focused on (and props to him for that), and to the realm of whether as a consumer issue the standalone "works" as any reasonable person would expect -- or need -- the people may well react negatively and be right in doing so. From him the question is one of troubleshooting and where in a process problem is. Cool. I get it. But from the perspective of a buyer, a paying consumer of the device, a singular flaw that creates an inherent dependency in a promoted feature, whose value is specifically tied to total independence, deosn't result in a partial, incremental or subjective loss, but a total loss of that feature.]

    I am no newbie, I came from the Kaypro and 300 baud pre compuserve generation . I was writing memos telecommunications policy when the experts thought 1200 baud was the absolute ceiling for potential consumer use since that was the fasted you could read asci. But I am no longer on the bleeding edge and more just of user when it comes to these handhelds. I rely, yes, very often on the advertising.

    There is an irony. The verizon case does serve a serious use, how we are lucky that Sprint doesn't have this total walled garden stick it approach. Our ability to just plug in Garmin, or Tomtom or whatever onto the Palm shows what a fantastically versatile, powerful and robust device it is.

    You wouldn't know it from my spelling and grammar but I used to hack/pitch and spin for a living, so that Palm Faq stunned me for its convolution and assumption of idiocy on the part of the reader.

    I would just appreciate if some people would call Palm and/or Sprint and work their way past the first line of tech support (who will explain to you, "of course you need the sprint network, how else will telnav or google maps work") and be polite but firm that this was advertised and is not working as the consensus of descriptions including for example Sprints senior GPS people*, say it should.

    * see last post:
    http://developer.sprint.com/show_thr...threadid=25742
    Last edited by aero; 11/14/2008 at 09:25 PM.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    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.
    Mal is correct, Aero.

    What is false advertising?
    False advertising is an unfair method of competition forbidden under federal law and state consumer-fraud statutes. The advertiser's intent isn't important. The overall impression conveyed is what counts.

    False advertising misleads about a product's place of origin, nature or quality, or maker. An example of misleading about a product's origin is putting French labels on sweaters made in Arkansas. Promising first-quality socks and delivering irregulars or seconds is misleading about an item's nature or quality. Claiming a Yugo is a Lexus is misleading about a product's maker. As for services, false advertising would mislead you into thinking that someone has qualifications (such as being a master carpenter) that he or she actually does not have.
    (Emphasis mine)

    That's a quote from FindLaw by the American Bar Association Family Legal Guide.

    And here's the relevant California law:

    17508. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person doing business in California and advertising to consumers in California to make any false or misleading advertising claim, including claims that (1) purport to be based on factual, objective, or clinical evidence, (2) compare the product's effectiveness or safety to that of other brands or products, or (3) purport to be based on any fact.
    (b) Upon written request of the Director of Consumer Affairs, the Attorney General, any city attorney, or any district attorney, any person doing business in California and in whose behalf advertising claims are made to consumers in California, including claims that (1) purport to be based on factual, objective, or clinical evidence, (2) compare the product's effectiveness or safety to that of other brands or products, or (3) purport to be based on any fact, shall provide to the department or official making the request evidence of the facts on which the advertising claims are based. The request shall be made within one year of the last day on which the advertising claims were made.
    Any city attorney or district attorney who makes a request pursuant to this subdivision shall give prior notice of the request to the Attorney General.
    (c) The Director of Consumer Affairs, Attorney General, any city attorney, or any district attorney may, upon failure of an advertiser to respond by adequately substantiating the claim within a reasonable time, or if the Director of Consumer Affairs, Attorney General, city attorney, or district attorney shall have reason to believe that the advertising claim is false or misleading, do either or both of the following:
    (1) Seek an immediate termination or modification of the claim by the person in accordance with Section 17535.
    (2) Disseminate information, taking due care to protect legitimate trade secrets, concerning the veracity of the claims or why the claims are misleading to the consumers of this state.
    (d) The relief provided for in subdivision (c) is in addition to any other relief that may be sought for a violation of this chapter. Section 17534 shall not apply to violations of this section.
    (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to hold any newspaper publisher or radio or television broadcaster liable for publishing or broadcasting any advertising claims referred to in subdivision (a), unless the publisher or broadcaster is the person making the claims.
    (f) The plaintiff shall have the burden of proof in establishing any violation of this section.
    (g) If an advertisement is in violation of subdivision (a) and Section 17500, the court shall not impose a separate civil penalty pursuant to Section 17536 for the violation of subdivision (a) and the violation of Section 17500 but shall impose a civil penalty for the violation of either subdivision (a) or Section 17500.
    Again, nothing about intent.


    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    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.
    (Emphasis mine)

    Funny how you say we misrepresented the case, then you state that the case did charge for the false advertising.

    What Verizon did was clearly wrong. They would have gotten a slap on the wrist for a false advertising suit. What they did afterwards simply opened the door to a larger suit



    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Please read the filings in a case before trying to instruct anyone.
    Might want to read the actual law before trying to instruct anyone.




    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    I really have a lot of respect and publicly here give props to you and to ebag for many valuable posts on other subjects. Some of what you have on this subject is valuable as well.
    Hmm, you gotta go and post something like that....

    Might have to remove you from my ignore list....
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Mal is correct, Aero.
    You brought up the citation and do not understand it. The Verizon case involved Verizon ordering Motorola to change the product.
    You attempted to use the case without ever reading the fillings or charges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    That's a quote from FindLaw by the American Bar Association Family Legal Guide.
    Again, nothing about intent.
    Hm. So intent is nothing in civil fraud case? I am curious why are you citing it? Why are you citing a case where intent went to establishing fraud and then citing a laws that is not about fraud?

    You seem more than confused.

    Perhaps because you didn't READ the filings? Yep that is what happened.

    Intent went to the accusation of FRAUD. Intent was established because Verizon's excuse for bluetooth crippling was that it ordered bluetooth to be crippled for security reasons.

    Let me break it down to high school level for you.
    Bluetooth wasn't fully functioning. Buyers asked why. If the reason was a non unintentional oversight, bad design, failure to get some drivers fro the chip maker, a incorrectly plexed antenna, etc. as then Motorola would have been the target of the suit.

    But Verizon decided as soon as the customer complaints started to reveal and announce that they intentionally ordered Motorola to disable it. The intent by VERIZON absolved Motorola.

    The legal facts, specifically intent, changed the case from mere false advertising against Motorola, to fraudulent adverting (requires intent) and negligently false advertising (requires expertise) and misleading adverting (requires only a mistake) against Verizon.

    Again, in the successful suits against Palm, HTC and Sprint were NOT sued.

    Let's get it straight, both Palm and Sprint could be sued, but according to all established law Palm is the primary exposed party and everyone knows it but you.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    The legal facts, specifically intent, changed the case from mere false advertising against Motorola, to fraudulent adverting (requires intent) and negligently false advertising (requires expertise) and misleading adverting (requires only a mistake) against Verizon.

    Again, in the successful suits against Palm, HTC and Sprint were NOT sued.

    Let's get it straight, both Palm and Sprint could be sued, but according to all established law Palm is the primary exposed party and everyone knows it but you.
    The suit against Palm has nothing to do with the suit against Verizon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333
    What Verizon did was clearly wrong. They would have gotten a slap on the wrist for a false advertising suit. What they did afterwards simply opened the door to a larger suit
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    The legal facts, specifically intent, changed the case from mere false advertising against Motorola, to fraudulent adverting (requires intent) and negligently false advertising (requires expertise) and misleading adverting (requires only a mistake) against Verizon.
    Thanks for agreeing with me.


    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Let's get it straight, both Palm and Sprint could be sued, but according to all established law Palm is the primary exposed party and everyone knows it but you.
    It shall be unlawful for any person doing business in California and advertising to consumers in California to make any false or misleading advertising claim
    Palm is liable because they sell the 800w themselves. If they did not sell them directly, but had all sales go through Sprint, then they would not be liable according to the letter of the law (at least in California, other states may be different but I suspect they will be similar)

    But Palm is liable, because they do sell phones. I never disagreed that you could sue Palm (succesfully).

    I merely disagree with your reply on this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta
    On to other things: intent in false advertising is not the main focus of a false advertising case and is in fact, irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aero
    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 letter of the law never mentions intent in false advertising. The American Bar Association (who I think would know more about law than you, I, or Mal) specifically states that "The advertiser's intent isn't important".

    Sprint is currently committing false advertising (as is Palm).


    I admire how you're trying to dodge being wrong about intent in false advertising, and you're dragging the Palm and Verizon cases into it mucks up the waters nicely. Except that the Verizon case wasn't merely a simple false advertising case, but instead the lawyers went for the larger charges (which would force Verizon to pay out more). You even stated as much. And the Palm case was a completely different can of worms.








    Lets try and make this a little simpler.



    Aero: Do you believe that according to the letter of the law (lets use California as the state, as I've already posted the law here), Sprint is committing false advertising? Yes or no?
    Last edited by Ebag333; 11/16/2008 at 02:27 PM.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    The suit against Palm has nothing to do with the suit against Verizon.
    Right the suit against Plam is for a similar problem (functional problems by the maker) and the suit against Verizon which you brought into the conversation has nothing at all to do with issue at hand.

    thanks for agreeing with the rest of us.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Palm is liable because they sell the 800w themselves. If they did not sell them directly, but had all sales go through Sprint, then they would not be liable according to the letter of the law (at least in California, other states may be different but I suspect they will be similar)
    False. Palm is liable totally for its direct sales and is the primary liability holder for the sales through Sprint.

    Manufactures are the ones held as primary liability parties.

    There are issues of fraud, false advertising and warranty. Palm would be the one exposed on consumer Fraud, and Warranty, and for false adverting, Palm would be the presumptive holder of liability, with Sprint possibly also having a secondarily liability on only the false adverting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    The letter of the law never mentions intent in false advertising. The American Bar Association (who I think would know more about law than you, I, or Mal) specifically states that "The advertiser's intent isn't important".
    Intent was brought up because you brought up the irrelevant Verizon case (there the provider, Verizon's, public response was they, not Motorola, disabled the advertised feature.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Sprint is currently committing false advertising (as is Palm).
    Yes, Palm is the primary false advertiser.

    Sellers are held for false advertising on things like quality available, price, bait and switch tactic etc. When manufactures provide feature data and resellers repeat it, their exposure is very small compared to the makers.

    Are you saying Best Buy, Ebay sellers, the non Sprint owned affiliated Sprint stores, Radio shack, Sprint etc are all at nearly the same level of liability as Sprint? They are not.

    [QUOTE=Ebag333;1523222]I admire how you're trying to dodge being wrong about intent in false advertising, and you're dragging the Palm and Verizon cases into it mucks up the waters nicely. Except that the Verizon case wasn't merely a simple false advertising c/QUOTE]

    I don;t nned to dodge, I understand the law as applied. you are confused. First you blamed Qualcomm, then you brought up verison, said it was the applicable case (which is silly), and misunderstood what darnell explained to you about intent.

    The successful case against Palm, just recently won by customers, is the a relevant case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Aero: Do you believe that according to the letter of the law (lets use California as the state, as I've already posted the law here), Sprint is committing false advertising? Yes or no?
    What a silly statement and question. Is Amazon? Is radio shack?

    Palms prime problem is not false adverting anyway, but fraudulent adverting, and warranty. Additionally there are Thousands of cases of false advertsing. Resellers are not the prime target in cases about missing features.

    Why? For the same reason Resellers are not the prime target in cases where batteries cause fires, but manufactures are. OK?!?

    Once again: Actual cases of False adverting against retailers and resellers center on price, availability (bait and switch) etc.

    Cases of missing features where the seller is repeating the Manufacturer's sales language hold the manufacture primarily responsible.

    If you go to a best buy and purchase a Sony TV advertised by Best Buy as having a Quam tuner, and it doesn't, but Best Buy has based their ad on Sony's supplied material, it is Sony that is responsible and exposed as the primary false advertiser. Sony is also exposed on Warranty (whereas Best Buy is not),and on fraudulent advertising (Best buy is not (intent)).

    As I have already noted in the past, Sprint has higher level of exposure than a normal retailer.

    The entire body of case law puts Palm and only Palm as the presumptive false advertiser (since Sprint is repeating maker material)-- BUT we all can agree Sprint has higher than normal liability and is a secondary liable party because they have a presumptive expertise. Also if they continue to have the description as is up in three or four months they are increasng there exposure. They do not have the exposure on warranty that Palm has and will have.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions