|
Posted by Jeff Liebermann on July 5, 2008, 7:06 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:25:56 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>Oh I bet they did. Remember here, though, I am not talking about the
>driver. It was the user-mode software that does not work on Vista,
>and the user-mode software drives the driver, which means that, if
>all I have are Vista machines, I cannot use the dongle as an AP.
Yep. You have a valid complaint in that all the software in the box
doesn't play with Vista. Whether it justifies all the noise you're
making is debatable.
>The investigation just started (at my behest), meaning any consumer
>can cause and investigation of any company for any reasonable claim of
>false advertising.
Yeah. That happens. I've been involved in a few class action suits
against companies that fumble over their advertising claims. Hard
disk manufacturers that couldn't resist stating unformatted capacity.
3Com that used the X2 trademark on their modems, only to discover that
buyers genuinely expected the modems to be x2 or two times as fast.
Several companies, who thought that a change of name justifies not
paying any rebates and revising some of their product specs. Also,
some medical billing issues that are not exactly relevant here. The
bottom line is that the lawyers collected millions by shaking down the
companies, while the victims usually received a gift certificate or
nominal discount on future purchases.
>I will however, say that the FTC representative was suprisingly
>diligent in verifiying details, etc. I also discerned from our
>conversation Zyxel is not the only company playing this game.
Conversation? Have you ever heard of the world wide web?
<https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov>
Fill out the form and wait your place in line. The FTC is required by
law to "investigate" any and all complaints that it receives. The
investigation may end up going no further than someone reading your
complaint and filling it appropriately. It may also be taken
seriously and obtain the attention of the Justice Department. Hard to
tell. If Zyxel didn't provide any campaign contributions, I'm sure
the threat of an investigation would get their attention. It works
for Microsoft.
As for other companies playing the same game, I suppose that's true.
Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
|
 
| |
Posted by Le Chaud Lapin on July 6, 2008, 4:29 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:25:56 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> As for other companies playing the same game, I suppose that's true.
> Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens.
I used to believe that until about 20 years ago, when an employee of
of Massachussetts Turnpike Authority started shaving $1 of my toll
payments. One day I deliberately paid with a $20, pretended I was in
hurry to make my 1 hour commute from Boston to Framingham, got all
$1's back (which is what made me suspicious in the first place), and I
pulled over to count. $18 back, when toll was $1. I walked back to
booth to demand my extra $1, and he pretended he didn't know. I called
MTA in vain, until finally a coworker who knew a friend of friend,
etc...let it be known that he was funding his drug habbit by
skimming. Anyhow, long story short, I have a check in my safe for $2
from MTA that took me 7 months to get. Obviously it is a matter of
principle for such a small amount, but I learned quite a bit from that
experience.
Since then, I have never had to sue anyone, but I have had countless
situations where people have been induced to make good their accounts.
Sometimes I let things go, like when took a drink at fancy Boston
restaurant and end up with mouthful of broken glass (manager wanted to
refund entire $140+ ticket + extra), and sometimes I push, like when
Air France tried to keep $2000 payment without telling me decisively
up front whether I would be allowed to travel not long after 9/11.
Sometimes the "defendant" finds mutual compromise, like when I was hit
by uninsured driver ($200), again ($0 and a handshake since there was
very little damage to my vehicle), etc. There is also matter of oil
company that trespassed on property I jointly own in East Texas.
Ahem. ;)
But it's not really the dollar amount. I look at the Zyxel situation
as an opportunity to do for others what others have done for me,
whether I was aware of it or not.
Who knows...someone else might want to run AP on PC running Vista, and
come across my post, and think twice, saving $65.
Zyxel certainly came across it (within 24 hours in fact).
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
Posted by LR on July 6, 2008, 5:22 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>>> In any case, as of 2008-06-02, the US Federal Trade Commision has
>>> launched a formal investigation of Zyxel's Vista-support claims of the
>>> AG-225H, so we'll see what happens.
>> Reference? URL? I couldn't find anything with Google.
>
> The investigation just started (at my behest), meaning any consumer
> can cause and investigation of any company for any reasonable claim of
> false advertising.
>
> I will however, say that the FTC representative was suprisingly
> diligent in verifiying details, etc. I also discerned from our
> conversation Zyxel is not the only company playing this game.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
If you are doing something about it rather than just Trolling at least
get your facts straight. "2008-06-02" is either 2nd June or 6th Feb and
your post " Windows PC As IEEE 802.11 Access Point" commenced 25th June.
At the start of that post you had "supposedly" not decided what item to
buy. If you filed a complaint with the FTC on 2008-06-02 then you
deliberately bought an item knowing that it would not work in a
particular function.
|
|
Posted by jpd on July 6, 2008, 5:59 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >
> If you are doing something about it rather than just Trolling at least
> get your facts straight. "2008-06-02" is either 2nd June or 6th Feb
Don't do that, you silly person. We have trouble enough with the
braindead ``nuxi''-style US date format as is. According to ISO8601
"2008-06-02" is 2nd June *only*. In fact, this sort of silly doubting is
why that standard exists in the first place.
Repeat after me: YYYY-MM-DD; fullyear dash month dash day and no other
interpretations. If for whatever reason you have to fuck up the order,
you write the month as Roman numbers or the month name or abbreviation.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.
|
|
Posted by Le Chaud Lapin on July 6, 2008, 12:10 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >
>
> > If you are doing something about it rather than just Trolling at least
> > get your facts straight. "2008-06-02" is either 2nd June or 6th Feb
>
> Don't do that, you silly person. We have trouble enough with the
> braindead ``nuxi''-style US date format as is. According to ISO8601
> "2008-06-02" is 2nd June *only*. In fact, this sort of silly doubting is
> why that standard exists in the first place.
>
> Repeat after me: YYYY-MM-DD; fullyear dash month dash day and no other
> interpretations. If for whatever reason you have to fuck up the order,
> you write the month as Roman numbers or the month name or abbreviation.
I agree with this, for multiiple reasons.
In any case, I meant 2008-07-02.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map