As some of you may know TrevE has helped to discover CIQ problems that were prevalent throughout a plethora of devices. Due to his efforts to educate us in what was going on in our devices CIQ has now issued a C&D to him. I urge you all to read this article and please help spread the word: http://www.xda-developers.com/android/carrier-iq-sues-treve/
dastin1015 said:
As some of you may know TrevE has helped to discover CIQ problems that were prevalent throughout a plethora of devices. Due to his efforts to educate us in what was going on in our devices CIQ has now issued a C&D to him. I urge you all to read this article and please help spread the word: http://www.xda-developers.com/android/carrier-iq-sues-treve/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man I totally agree with you. I already tipped a bunch of tech news sites and I posted on a few blogs. You mind if I steal your sig while this is happening?
monkeychef said:
Man I totally agree with you. I already tipped a bunch of tech news sites and I posted on a few blogs. You mind if I steal your sig while this is happening?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go ahead
私のエボ3Dから送信される。
+1
If he is taking up donations for legal fees count me in.
I hadn't heard about this. Thanks for bringing it to light for me. It's absolutely terrible.
+1
I'm one of yours
BREAKING NEWS!
TREV WINS
Mountain View, CA – November 23, 2011 – As, of today, we are withdrawing
our cease and desist letter to Mr. Trevor Eckhart. We have reached out to Mr.
Eckhart and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to apologize. Our action
was misguided and we are deeply sorry for any concern or trouble that our letter
may have caused Mr. Eckhart. We sincerely appreciate and respect EFF’s work
on his behalf, and share their commitment to protecting free speech in a rapidly
changing technological world.
We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the functionality of Carrier IQ’s
software, what it does not do and what it does:
- Does not record your keystrokes.
- Does not provide tracking tools.
- Does not inspect or report on the content of your communications, such as
the content of emails and SMSs.
- Does not provide real-time data reporting to any customer.
- Finally, we do not sell Carrier IQ data to third parties.
Our software is designed to help mobile network providers diagnose critical
issues that lead to problems such as dropped calls and battery drain.
Here’s what our software does:
- Our software makes your phone work better by identifying dropped calls
and poor service.
- Our software identifies problems that impede a phone’s battery life.
- Our software makes customer service quicker, more accurate, and more
efficient.
- Our software helps quickly identify trending problems to help mobile
networks prevent them from becoming more widespread.
We look forward to a healthy and robust discussion with EFF that we believe will
be helpful to us, to our customers, and to consumers that use mobile devices.
We welcome feedback on our products and understand that Mr. Eckhart and
other developers like him play an important role by raising questions about the
complicated and technical aspects of the mobile ecosystem.
私のエボ3Dから送信される。
My open letter to Carrier IQ.
Dear Carrier Iq Team,
I'm deeply annoyed and a kind of anger is surging as well.
I think you lost all credibility by the way you behaved with Mr. Eckhart, XDA dev., who did point to us users the hidden tool that you implemented in some smartphones.
Withouth the knwoledge of their customers!
Trying to sue him than retracting because of a growing pressure from the community shows also how you are acting and thinking.
Not consumer friendly and by your behaviour you do a lot of damage to that industry. Who will now believe you if you says that you don't track sensible datas or so. Me not! You just lost a lot of credibility.
I saw the post from Mr. Eckhart and the very intelligent way how he pointed that out. I'm not sure that regulations allow you to do it that way and will have to dig a bit into it.
I saw the C&D letter you sent to him and must say that your General Consel who wrote it lacks some kind of diplomacy and judgment.
Maybe you're allowed in your country to do such things, which i doubt. In Europe you could get sued for that. Keep it in mind and tell your wise General Counsel to be ready.
Do you remember how much problems Street View had in our beautifull Europe…keep that in mind also.
I'm not a dev., i'm not an it security guy, just a plain customer, an angry customer.
Sincerly.
Innal
As situation solved this nos longer needs to be stickied.
Don't know what happened... but my alert was put into Q&A even though it's not a question.
Sorry, for the cross-posting... but this issue is very important to all of us who care about rooting/modifying our devices. We may soon lose the legal exemption to do that.
UPDATE: I see that xda-dev has an article in its main portal page...
Bumping this until Feb. 10...
when no one will be able to affect the situation...
TRIED the website but it must be having some issues. Thanks Geek for the heads up. What a freakin joke. Utter and total BS. Imagine if the government tried to tell people that they couldn't modify there car? I'll try to find a better link to the petition.
Before everyone gets hyped:
It's a little bit complicated. First off, the Federal Government (namely a member of Congress) would have to care enough to push for a law to be passed. Another thing that could happen is that there could be an Agency regulation that specifically prohibits rooting. However for that to happen, they have to authority to be able to enforce it.
As long as you are not reverse engineering, you are not breaking any U.S. law. This exemption that is expiring only clarified a defense to a law that does not exist, meaning that we specifically stated that rooting was not a crime, while there was no law stating that modification was a crime. It is a very vague, legal gray area. It's a lot like gun laws- things are not settled until they are tried in court.
So hopefully it gets renewed.
finch8423 said:
Before everyone gets hyped:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too late. Getting hyped is a prerequisite for being a member of xda-dev.
finch8423 said:
It's a little bit complicated. First off, the Federal Government (namely a member of Congress) would have to care enough to push for a law to be passed. Another thing that could happen is that there could be an Agency regulation that specifically prohibits rooting. However for that to happen, they have to authority to be able to enforce it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that it is complicated. But, according to EFF: Some device manufacturers claim that jailbreaking violates Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which carries stiff penalties.there is already such a law. Granted, there has not been a court case, yet, testing that law. But it is on the books.
finch8423 said:
As long as you are not reverse engineering, you are not breaking any U.S. law. This exemption that is expiring only clarified a defense to a law that does not exist, meaning that we specifically stated that rooting was not a crime, while there was no law stating that modification was a crime. It is a very vague, legal gray area. It's a lot like gun laws- things are not settled until they are tried in court.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, you may wish to read, specifically, about Section 1201 of the DMCA. It is false comfort to think that a law does not exist... it does exist. The wikipedia article on the DMCA has a good discussion. If you are more of a legal geek, then the government provides congressional report 105-796 and a summary on the internet. For information on how institutions of learning can be affected, EDUCAUSE addresses the issue on its site.
finch8423 said:
So hopefully it gets renewed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The whole point of creating this thread. To help ensure that it is renewed.
A bull****, nothing more. It is my property and I do with it what I want. They can only affect my warrenty. They can only do something if its a carrier branded and you don't buy for full price . Then device is still a carrier property
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
This country is already broke (not only financially, but also morally -- but that's an entirely different discussion), how will they go about actually enforcing this law? I know that phone companies can gather a lot of information about your phone remotely, but can they tell whether your phone is rooted or not?
I'm not trying to be pompous, so I apologize if I came off like that. I completely agree with you.
They can claim all they want. It's important for everyone to know that if it comes to that, there is no specific law addressing this, only claims under the DMCA.
In my legal opinion, root privileges can hardly be misconstrued as copyright infringement. It's mainly Macintosh that is pushing this though- they claim that jailbreaking is illegal because of the close-source nature of their products (It's also ironic to note that many of the working conditions of their factories would be considered illegal in every country that they sell their products in).
Well macintosh and... recently, ASUS, right? and one other... last summer, but I can't recall who right now.
Let's just say... for sake of argument that carriers sign agreements with manufacturerers (when, in fact, they're different companies)... that require them to deny service to "rooted" devices based on the law... or maybe not the law... but their collective interpretation of the law...
Honestly...
Ndaa, sopa, pipa... Now this???
Dammit my m4 is getting put to use soon isn't it??
Sent from my SGH-T959V using XDA App
^ add ACTA to that list.
Sent from my SGS 4G.
You do realize that google gave us source, and samsung gave us source, and they both stated that "THIS CAN BE USED FOR "ENRICHMENT" OF YOUR PHONE" google android is 100% free. Even if it expired, it wouldn't effect us. Whoever the fool that initially stated that rooting will go away is false.
As ACTA is *****. My country accepted it, **** them
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
gefilus said:
As ACTA is *****. My country accepted it, **** them
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn... is your town as beautiful in person as it looks in pictures? I had to look it up to see where the hell you lived
Watch profile and will see where I live
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
airfluip1 said:
You do realize that google gave us source, and samsung gave us source, and they both stated that "THIS CAN BE USED FOR "ENRICHMENT" OF YOUR PHONE" google android is 100% free. Even if it expired, it wouldn't effect us. Whoever the fool that initially stated that rooting will go away is false.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you suggesting that EFF doesn't know what the hell they are talking about?
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
Maybe. Just ask Google.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using xda premium
We might not be talking apples to apples...
I know apple has fought their phones being jail broken. But isn't it the carriers who really have the problem with it? They want to make you buy their network specific phone from them?
They can only put this law if there is one only on devices which are carrier branded. On unlocked or unbramded devices they can't do the ****. It is in my proparty and take you hand of from it, I can do with my device what I want
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
lumin30 said:
Damn... is your town as beautiful in person as it looks in pictures? I had to look it up to see where the hell you lived
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mostly and almost the same like in pictures. And ye waterfall is or mark
Sent from my HTC Desire S using xda premium
I've made a request to file a complaint with the Canadian Competition Bureau regarding contravention of the Competition Act by LG and WIND Mobile.
I need the original advertising from LG Canada and WIND Mobile which states that the Optimus 2X is upgradeable. Would someone please post them and/or attach them and/or a hyperlink to them so I can forward them to the Competition Bureau.
Here's my complaint:
I purchased an expensive cell phone (approximately $500), which was manufactured by LG, from WIND Mobile and was clearly marketed as being "upgradeable" (meaning that the Android operating system, Froyo, which came with the phone would be upgradeable to Android Gingerbread, the next iteration of the Android OS which was already available for other cell phones) which I relied on as an important part of my decision to purchase that phone, an Optimus 2X. Since that purchase, I have waited patiently for WIND or LG to provide an upgrade to the phone's operating system, which has never occurred in Canada although it has elsewhere LG sells this phone and, according to an official statement from LG Canada, never will for that phone. There are significant negative consequences to me and others who purchased this phone of which some are the denial of: fixes to problems due to faulty programming of the original software which operates the phone; improved functionality and additional features; and, the significant reduction in the resale value of the cell phone in less than a year from purchase (this phone in excellent condition can only be successfully resold for $150 - $200 and some have stated on public forums that they can't even get $150 for it). I think that WIND and LG made a material misrepresentation about this phone (Optimus 2X) which has caused me and others who purchased the phone a material loss which is covered by the Competition Act according to http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/page-41.html#h-24 . I would like to file a formal complaint about WIND Mobile and LG in this regard. I have some evidence to prove the material misrepresentation and that LG has publicly stated that there will not be any upgrades/updates for the Optimus 2X in Canada (although LG has provided them for this phone in other national jurisdictions such as the United States, Asia, and Europe). I have include some pertinent information but the original LG and WIND Mobile Optimus 2X promotional information has been removed from LG and WIND's websites but I may be able to find it somewhere else on the internet and/or from elesewhere. This is a very important issue because the Canadian cell phone business/industry is rife with billing fraud and misrepresentations regarding services, coverage, cell phone features, usability, quality, upgradeability, etc. which, at the least, misleads the consumer and, worse, fraud. Please contact me regarding my complaint.
Really though, you did get upgraded. They don't have to keep upgrading and supporting older devices. I don't think you'll get anywhere but good luck.
Sent via G2x on CM7 b135.1 w/faux 52 kernel
---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------
I'm sorry I read it again. So you didn't even get a gingerbread update? Wow. That is bull. My bad on previous post.
Sent via G2x on CM7 b135.1 w/faux 52 kernel
Could you tell me how you could send a report as well, I also have the wind version of the p999
Good luck hope something nice happens...
fellow wind p999 user
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda app-developers app
justjackyl said:
Really though, you did get upgraded. They don't have to keep upgrading and supporting older devices. I don't think you'll get anywhere but good luck.
Sent via G2x on CM7 b135.1 w/faux 52 kernel
---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------
I'm sorry I read it again. So you didn't even get a gingerbread update? Wow. That is bull. My bad on previous post.
Sent via G2x on CM7 b135.1 w/faux 52 kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, no updates at all. Canada gets treated like [email protected] by foreign companies, even our own such as Rogers, Bell, Telus, WIND. What really pisses me off about LG is that it is a South Korean company which wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the sacrifice of Canada and Canadian soldiers, many of which were killed and wounded, during the Korean War, driving the North Korean Communist forces back into North Korea. Canada has treated South Korean companies such as LG, Samsung, Kia, Hyundai, etc., very well but they, particularly LG in this case, haven't treated Canadians with respect and appreciation for helping them and keeping their economy healthy. FU LG!
Edit:
I didn't mean to leave out the sacrifices made by the soldiers of other nations which fought in the Korean War. I also have an uncle, a Canadian, who enlisted in the U.S. armed forces and fought in the Korean War.
The Korean War isn't over, it's just an armistice. U.S. troops are still in South Korea and a resumption of the war is always imminent: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349616/North-Korea-on-the-brink-of-nuclear-war-with-South-Korea-
I don't think anyone should expend any more treasure and blood to defend a country which has a company, such as LG, which abuses the consumers of its products in the country that defends them. That may be extreme but I think LG deserves it for its abuse of Canadian consumers of its products. Blow'em up (LG) real good North Korea!
idropkickyou said:
Could you tell me how you could send a report as well, I also have the wind version of the p999
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's the Canada Competion Bureau website:
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/home
You'll see two hyperlinked sentences on the right side which provide information and a form for filing a request for an investigation. I hope you also file a request. Good luck.
Best of luck.
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
Man i hope you win. That would make my freaking day
Sent from my LG-P999 using xda premium
Has anyone found on the internet or have a copy on their computer of an LG Canada or WIND advert stating that the Optimus 2X is upgradeable? I need it for the Competition Bureau.
Core Memory said:
I've made a request to file a complaint with the Canadian Competition Bureau regarding contravention of the Competition Act by LG and WIND Mobile.
I need the original advertising from LG Canada and WIND Mobile which states that the Optimus 2X is upgradeable. Would someone please post them and/or attach them and/or a hyperlink to them so I can forward them to the Competition Bureau.
Here's my complaint:
I purchased an expensive cell phone (approximately $500), which was manufactured by LG, from WIND Mobile and was clearly marketed as being "upgradeable" (meaning that the Android operating system, Froyo, which came with the phone would be upgradeable to Android Gingerbread, the next iteration of the Android OS which was already available for other cell phones) which I relied on as an important part of my decision to purchase that phone, an Optimus 2X. Since that purchase, I have waited patiently for WIND or LG to provide an upgrade to the phone's operating system, which has never occurred in Canada although it has elsewhere LG sells this phone and, according to an official statement from LG Canada, never will for that phone. There are significant negative consequences to me and others who purchased this phone of which some are the denial of: fixes to problems due to faulty programming of the original software which operates the phone; improved functionality and additional features; and, the significant reduction in the resale value of the cell phone in less than a year from purchase (this phone in excellent condition can only be successfully resold for $150 - $200 and some have stated on public forums that they can't even get $150 for it). I think that WIND and LG made a material misrepresentation about this phone (Optimus 2X) which has caused me and others who purchased the phone a material loss which is covered by the Competition Act according to http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/page-41.html#h-24 . I would like to file a formal complaint about WIND Mobile and LG in this regard. I have some evidence to prove the material misrepresentation and that LG has publicly stated that there will not be any upgrades/updates for the Optimus 2X in Canada (although LG has provided them for this phone in other national jurisdictions such as the United States, Asia, and Europe). I have include some pertinent information but the original LG and WIND Mobile Optimus 2X promotional information has been removed from LG and WIND's websites but I may be able to find it somewhere else on the internet and/or from elesewhere. This is a very important issue because the Canadian cell phone business/industry is rife with billing fraud and misrepresentations regarding services, coverage, cell phone features, usability, quality, upgradeability, etc. which, at the least, misleads the consumer and, worse, fraud. Please contact me regarding my complaint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bought my phone from WIND last December and was told not only would the phone be upgrade to GB in the near future but that ICS was just around the corner. I had three different sales people tell me this was a certainty. I, for one, definitely took this into account when purchasing this phone, knowing the trouble with the Tegra 2 drivers in particular.
Thanks for posting this.
Please keep me informed about what you hear back, if anything.
Cheers
---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------
justjackyl said:
Really though, you did get upgraded. They don't have to keep upgrading and supporting older devices. I don't think you'll get anywhere but good luck.
Sent via G2x on CM7 b135.1 w/faux 52 kernel
---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------
I'm sorry I read it again. So you didn't even get a gingerbread update? Wow. That is bull. My bad on previous post.
Sent via G2x on CM7 b135.1 w/faux 52 kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WIND never upgraded the phone. Other carriers have (T-Mobile for instance). WIND is still running Froyo. Ugly, substandard, Froyo.
Edit: sorry, lol, just read your edit. Sorry about that.
---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------
Core Memory said:
Yes, no updates at all. Canada gets treated like [email protected] by foreign companies, even our own such as Rogers, Bell, Telus, WIND. What really pisses me off about LG is that it is a South Korean company which wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the sacrifice of Canada and Canadian soldiers, many of which were killed and wounded, during the Korean War, driving the North Korean Communist forces back into North Korea. Canada has treated South Korean companies such as LG, Samsung, Kia, Hyundai, etc., very well but they, particularly LG in this case, haven't treated Canadians with respect and appreciation for helping them and keeping their economy healthy. FU LG!
Edit:
I didn't mean to leave out the sacrifices made by the soldiers of other nations which fought in the Korean War. I also have an uncle, a Canadian, who enlisted in the U.S. armed forces and fought in the Korean War.
The Korean War isn't over, it's just an armistice. U.S. troops are still in South Korea and a resumption of the war is always imminent: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349616/North-Korea-on-the-brink-of-nuclear-war-with-South-Korea-
I don't think anyone should expend any more treasure and blood to defend a country which has a company, such as LG, which abuses the consumers of its products in the country that defends them. That may be extreme but I think LG deserves it for its abuse of Canadian consumers of its products. Blow'em up (LG) real good North Korea!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I'm all for holding LG/WIND to account, I don't support your position in this post. The actions of a corporation have nothing to do with a war from sixty years ago. I'm not discounting Canadian involvement in it, though it was a proxy war between the States and China primarily. Invoking a war between North and South Korea because you're pissed that our phone hasn't been upgraded is in poor taste. Hopefully you were joking with this post.
sellless said:
I bought my phone from WIND last December and was told not only would the phone be upgrade to GB in the near future but that ICS was just around the corner. I had three different sales people tell me this was a certainty. I, for one, definitely took this into account when purchasing this phone, knowing the trouble with the Tegra 2 drivers in particular.
Thanks for posting this.
Please keep me informed about what you hear back, if anything.
Cheers
---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------
WIND never upgraded the phone. Other carriers have (T-Mobile for instance). WIND is still running Froyo. Ugly, substandard, Froyo.
Edit: sorry, lol, just read your edit. Sorry about that.
---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------
Well I'm all for holding LG/WIND to account, I don't support your position in this post. The actions of a corporation have nothing to do with a war from sixty years ago. I'm not discounting Canadian involvement in it, though it was a proxy war between the States and China primarily. Invoking a war between North and South Korea because you're pissed that our phone hasn't been upgraded is in poor taste. Hopefully you were joking with this post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No joke.
Just because the Korean War was 60 years ago doesn't mean we should forget about those who were wounded and those who were killed whose lives were destroyed and ruined and why they fought.
Any particular cell phone, as a device, is trivial but that's not the issue, it's the abusive attitude and behaviour of countries and companies toward those who ensured their existence through fighting in a war to defend them which isn't trivial. The Korean War began because of the invasion of South Korea by North Korea and it was the U.N. which intervened because South Korea was incapable of defending itself.
LG, which is located in South Korea, a country which has cost Canada and other countries many lives and a fortune which is still being spent to defend it, needs to be reminded of that and that it should respect and be ethical in its behaviour towards its customers located in the countries which defended South Korea, including Canada. If Canada and other countries hadn't driven the North Koreans out of South Korea, LG wouldn't exist and the South Koreans would be living in Communist Hell.
guys, i think talking about politics is against forum rules. anyways, i agree with this, but WIND doesn't need this right now. id like them to stay alive! never will i have a phone with robelius. but if you get somewhere with this, all the best to you! im getting the 4X when it comes out. i like LG regardless of no ICS
Support the idea, but your Korean war references just make your argument weak.
Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk 2
I thought the LG optimus 4x will not be released in canada
bluenote73 said:
Support the idea, but your Korean war references just make your argument weak.
Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It didn't make the argument weak, it is my personal moral opinion about it adding insult to injury. The morality of their behaviour is irrelevant to the investigation and/or prosecution. Anyone may agree or disagree with my moral opinion of LG's behaviour but the integrity of the facts of the legal argument, that LG and WIND Mobile materially misrepresented the upgradeability of the Optimus 2X in Canada in its promotional materials, is intact and unquestionable.
Competition Bureau reply to complaint
Here is the reply I received from the Canadian Competition Bureau with my personal information removed:
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX:
Thank you for the information you provided to the Competition Bureau regarding Wind.
The role of the Bureau, as an independent law enforcement agency, is to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace. Information brought to our attention by consumers and businesses is very important to our work as it contributes to the identification of marketplace issues. The Bureau takes all allegations of false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices seriously.
Due to the large number of complaints we receive, we have established criteria for the selection of cases to ensure that our decision to pursue or not pursue a particular case is exercised in an objective and consistent manner. We consider, for example, factors such as the scope of the conduct, the number of consumers and/or businesses adversely affected, the financial loss caused by the practice, the number of complaints received and the available evidence.
The information you have provided will be recorded and entered into our database and it may be used to develop or support future enforcement activities under the laws we enforce. As a law enforcement agency, the Bureau is required to conduct its investigations in private. As such, we cannot provide complaint status reports or comment further on this matter in order to protect the integrity of the investigative process.
We invite you to visit our Web site, www.competitionbureau.gc.ca, to learn more about the work of the Bureau and to access public information on case developments and general information about our programs and activities.
Please understand that the Bureau does not have the authority to provide legal advice or to resolve disputes, whether contractual or of another nature. You may wish to retain counsel and seek independent legal advice. You may also wish to contact your local government consumer protection agency, which may be in a position to address your concerns.
Thank you again for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.
TXXXXX CXXXXXX
Agent de la mise en application | Direction générale des pratiques loyales des affaires
Enforcement Support Officer | Fair Business Practices Branch
1-800-348-5358 | télécopieur / facsimile 819-997-0324 | ATS/TTY 1-800-642-3844
Bureau de la concurrence | 50, rue Victoria, Gatineau (Québec)K1A 0C9
Competition Bureau | 50 Victoria Street, Gatineau, QuebecK1A 0C9
Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada
www.bureaudelaconcurrence.gc.ca | www.competitionbureau.gc.ca
Maybe you should have told them your korean war angle.
bluenote73 said:
Maybe you should have told them your korean war angle.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It probably would have worked.
I phoned them and got a re-evaluation, Korea wasn't mentioned, based on leaving LG out of the boilerplate reply and my explanation that although the complaint appears trivial it isn't and why it isn't. I also said that I didn't like the cherry picking of investigations that superficially appear to be more important than others. As well, I explained that, although it is one cell phone model, the practise of promising upgradeability and upgrades by phone manufacturers and retailers and not providing them is rampant in the cell phone business/industry and that there material damages to Canadian consumers result from that practise. Additionally, I explained how the cell phone manufacturers practise that as a form of "bait and switch", they promise operating system upgrades in their advertising which purchasers rely on when making their purchase decision then the manufacturer doesn't provide the promised upgrade and, instead, offers a newer model which the customer who already purchased a phone from them can buy to get a phone with a newer operating system although the newer phone hardware may not be as or more capable than the phone already owned but which doesn't receive the newer operating system version. There's more that I said but that's enough to understand the seriousness of my complaint.
The Canadian Competition Bureau has sued Rogers, Telus, Bell, and the CWTA, for false advertising so, hopefully, it will take my complaint seriously too: http://mobilesyrup.com/2012/09/14/r...-misleading-ads-for-premium-texting-services/
Here's the Competion Bureau's statement titled "Misleading Advertising and Labelling" http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html
And, their website page explaining the Competition Act's section about "False or Misleading Representations" http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html
Excerpt:
"False or Misleading Representations
The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations.
Section 52 of the Act is a criminal provision. It prohibits knowingly or recklessly making, or permitting the making of, a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 52(4) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
Any person who contravenes section 52 is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to $200,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year on summary conviction, or to fines in the discretion of the court and/or imprisonment up to 14 years upon indictment.
Paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
If a court determines that a person has engaged in conduct contrary to paragraph 74.01(1)(a), it may order the person not to engage in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice, to pay an administrative monetary penalty and/or to pay restitution to purchasers. When the court orders the payment of administrative monetary penalties, on first occurrence, individuals are subject to penalties of up to $750,000 and corporations, to penalties of up to $10,000,000. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation. The court also has the power to order interim injunctions to freeze assets in certain cases.
Additional information on Restitution Orders and Interim Injunctions to Freeze Assets
In order to proceed on a criminal track both of the following criteria must be satisfied: (1) there must be clear and compelling evidence suggesting that the accused knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading representation to the public. An example of such evidence is the continuation of a practice by the accused after complaints have been made by consumers directly to the accused; and (2) the Bureau must also be satisfied that criminal prosecution would be in the public interest. More information on the choice of track is available from the following publication Misleading Representations and Deceptive Marketing Practices: Choice of Criminal or Civil Track Under the Competition Act.
Relevant publications"
More: http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03133.html
Here's the relevant section of the Competition Act, "Misleading Warranties and Gaurantees" http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/00525.html
The specific contravention relates to the promise to "maintain" which, in the case of the Canadian LG Optimus 2X is the promise of "upgradeability" made in advertising used by LG and WIND Mobile to promote the sale of that cell phone.
"Misleading Warranties and Guarantees
Paragraph 74.01(1)(c) of the Competition Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, to the public, of any materially misleading product warranty or guarantee, or promise to replace, maintain or repair an article. This includes circumstances in which there is no reasonable prospect that the warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
If a court determines that a person has engaged in conduct contrary to paragraph 74.01(1)(c), it may order the person not to engage in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice and/or to pay an administrative monetary penalty of up to $750,000 in the case of a first time occurrence by an individual and $10,000,000 in the case of a first time occurrence by a corporation. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation.
Relevant publications
Additional Information
Although paragraph 74.01(1)(b) also relates to warranties and guarantees, and is considered in the Performance representations not based on adequate and proper tests section, paragraph 74.01(1)(c) operates where the warranty or guarantee is itself misleading or where there is no reasonable prospect that it will be honoured. It also covers warranties that deceptively reduce a purchaser's usual rights as well as guarantees that are otherwise useless.
Example:
A tire warranty contains the representation "adjustment prices are intended to, but may not in all cases, represent current average selling prices" and, in 85 percent of the cases, the adjustment prices are higher than the average selling prices.
Court actions under this provision and former paragraph 52(1)(c) have rarely occurred."
Here's the email I received from the Canadian Competition Bureau subsequent to my conversation with a rep there. I will be contacting them again to get the criteria they use for deciding to pursue or not pursue a particular case. After that and a reasonable period for a reply, whether or not I get it, I will contact my Member of Parliament about it.
"Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXX:
This refers to your telephone call of October 3, 2012 requesting the Competition Bureau to reconsider your complaint regarding Wind and LG in light of the additional information you provided.
We have reviewed your additional information and reconsidered your complaint and we maintain our decision that the matter you have raised cannot be addressed by the Bureau at this time.
As mentioned in our previous correspondence, due to the large number of complaints we receive, we have established criteria for the selection of cases to ensure that our decision to pursue or not pursue a particular case is exercised in an objective and consistent manner.
As was the case for the information you originally provided, your additional information will be recorded and entered in our database and it may be used to develop or support future enforcement activities under the laws we enforce.
We regret that we cannot provide you with a more favourable response.
Thank you for taking the time to bring this information to our attention.
Txxxx Cxxxxx
Agent de la mise en application | Direction générale des pratiques loyales des affaires
Enforcement Support Officer | Fair Business Practices Branch
1-800-348-5358 | télécopieur / facsimile 819-997-0324 | ATS/TTY 1-800-642-3844
Bureau de la concurrence | 50, rue Victoria, Gatineau (Québec)K1A 0C9
Competition Bureau | 50 Victoria Street, Gatineau, QuebecK1A 0C9
Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada
www.bureaudelaconcurrence.gc.ca | www.competitionbureau.gc.ca "