Batboard

richyradio wrote:what I really want to know................................sta-con, what is the "source" of that pic (avatar).....

That was sent to me by a friend a couple of years ago.

It was originally from late 40s early 50s safety campaign of "Don't do this at home" type. What _I_ find funny about it is (a) I did things like that as a child. (b) I looked like that as a child. (c) It fits right in with my web site and the company line of "Stay Connected."

A better picture of same

Jeff

Well I can't take this any longer! That photo looks exactly like me and one of my "electrical experements" and I am holding a table knife. Accually I was tightning the screw that holds the plastic plate.

Will

I remember doing that with a bobby pin when I was 2 or 3. Much better at making sparks than just a plain old screwdriver. In fact as I recall they came up out of the floor !

Bob M.

Hello.

This reminds me of some of the very early electrical "attachment plugs".
The things were a screw-in base affair, just like a lightbulb, with a pair of wires coming out.
The socket was a hole in the wall, or floor, as the case may be.
Electrical fires and elecrocution was common.

One of the very first demos of what was later to be the Motorola radio was set back by an underhood fire.

We have come a long way from cotton covered wiring and screw in plugs.
Now it is IP and screwed RSS.

It reminds me of a picture my parents have of me, wiring up power points and light switches while our house was being built when I was about 5. (Dad checked them after me, of course!)

Just out of curiosity, what do the previous six posts have to do with "Nick radios"???

RRrobby wrote:Just out of curiosity, what do the previous six posts have to do with "Nick radios"???

you mean including yours too right?

(ok mine too)

RRrobby wrote:Just out of curiosity, what do the previous six posts have to do with "Nick radios"???

Absolutely Nothing

Ya know, I was wondering the same thing about the avatar. I just thought it was a Photoshop job. Photo looks like me too when I was younger. I got hit by 120V, and because it didn't kill me the first time, I touched the plug again.

Ok, getting this thread back on track (sorta).

Have a friend *cough* *cough* who has another friend who has a nick AS3 (acording to flash). This guy was thinking about selling it on ebay. What is your advise to this guy? Are the motorola police going to hassle this guy for selling it?

They'll probably get eBay to kill the auction, and they'll e-mail him a copy of their standard eBay IP warning notice.

Interesting, but so far it doesn' look like it's stopped some recent AS3 eBay auctions with the "Bonaza flash code"....heck, I think I even saw one or two of them with depot tags on the back.

RRrobby wrote:Just out of curiosity, what do the previous six posts have to do with "Nick radios"???

Absolutely nothing. Think of it as "recess."

Now that recess is over, has anyone gotten any follow up letters and or notification from either Motorola or Patrick Harrington regarding the "Nick" radios?

Jeff

stay-con wrote:

RRrobby wrote:Just out of curiosity, what do the previous six posts have to do with "Nick radios"???

Absolutely nothing. Think of it as "recess."

Now that recess is over, has anyone gotten any follow up letters and or notification from either Motorola or Patrick Harrington regarding the "Nick" radios?

Jeff

Nothing here so far.

Nothing here, either....

Hello.

Motorola has not said one word since the last deadline.

Cowthief, did you get a letter also?

Hello.

I got a letter nearly 2 years before the latest thing.
My case was wrapped up a few months before the latest batch of letters was sent out.
The common thread seems to be paypal, in every case.
Motorola gave up on going after me on any IP issues.
Everything I was doing was 100% legit.
Now, it would seem to be getting quiet, at least for a while.

Just a thought here ..........a Nick radio is just a counterfeit piece of merchandise.
Remember the fake rollex watches being crushed by a road roller?
I don’t remember how the coppers got hold of them and gave them to Rolex to destroy
on TV but it was funny. I would love to see Nicky’s go crunch, no wait, the faces of all those
who turned them in to moto when they get destroyed.

were those fake rolex watches made from rolex parts?

i highly doubt it.

apples vs. oranges if they were not.

ab wrote:Just a thought here ..........a Nick radio is just a counterfeit piece of merchandise.

Every bit of Nick's radios are genuine Motorola parts.

How he acquired them, and other issues about them are suspect, but they are not counterfeit in the sense of counterfeit Levis, Rolex watches etc..

Jeff

I seem to remember some Buick parts was stolen from the factory in Detroit a number of years ago and some they was put together to make a high end high price but counterfeit cars. All the parts were GM but they had no real factory VINs.
Lots of people went to prison over all this counterfeited goods fraud.
“Nick” radios have no real factory serial numbers, if someone would buy
one thinking it was real, that would be fraud.

If I had one of these radios I would destroy the vocon and sell a bag of parts.

But hey, I wear my seatbelt and don't fart near open flames

again another difference, AFAIK nicks parts werent stolen.

if they were stolen, then yea they would have a HUGE case, but if someone buys all the parts and assembles the parts, thats different.


again, apples vs. oranges.

Cowthief wrote: Motorola has not said one word since the last deadline.

What about Nick? Anyone hear from watchbuddy lately?

Jeff

For those considering telling Mother M, "I sold the radio at Dayton (or where ever) to some guy I don't know, for cash", be prepared to make a sworn deposition to that effect. You may still have the radio, but lying under oath is a felony. I don't agree with the way Mother M is handling this but I would be willing to bet, that would be their reaction if receiving such a letter.

"I don't recall"

worked great for Hillary Clinton



mancow

mancow wrote:"I don't recall"

worked great for Hillary Clinton

mancow

There's only a slight problem with that. That only appears to work with people with power, money or position. The rest of us get hung up by our thumbs.

But it's certainly better than lying under oath.

Jeff

Hello.

Motorola has since given up on any legal issues with me.
I am free to do whatever, within reason, what I want with Motorola products.
Motorola has since sent some vouchers, for radios or what-have-you.
This does not mean I can supply anyone with what-have-you, but the monkey is off my back.

Andy Corbin wrote:For those considering telling Mother M, "I sold the radio at Dayton (or where ever) to some guy I don't know, for cash", be prepared to make a sworn deposition to that effect. You may still have the radio, but lying under oath is a felony. I don't agree with the way Mother M is handling this but I would be willing to bet, that would be their reaction if receiving such a letter.

Won't ever come to that, guaranteed.

I agree totally - their calling your bluff...

Over 90% of convictions come from people that have come from people that have self confessed - weather they know it or not.

I seems some here think Motorola and their attorneys have some legal power to order you to do something, this of course is completly ridiculous. Only a judge in a court of law can do this.

Chris
N9LLO

And the judge would need legal grounds - that don't exist - upon which to make such an order.

mr.syntrx wrote:And the judge would need legal grounds - that don't exist - upon which to make such an order.

Under normal circumstances yes.

However, when the "Big M" speaks, people listen, they give them the benefit of the doubt to them. "Why would they lie?"

Of course it also helps when the person doing the requesting pulls the "We _are_ public safety" card.

Jeff

stay-con wrote:

mr.syntrx wrote:And the judge would need legal grounds - that don't exist - upon which to make such an order.

Under normal circumstances yes.

However, when the "Big M" speaks, people listen, they give them the benefit of the doubt to them. "Why would they lie?"

Of course it also helps when the person doing the requesting pulls the "We _are_ public safety" card.

Jeff

That does not change the facts. There will still have to be a court order issued for a given radio to be confiscated by the COURT (not Motorola). This would have to be done either in a Federal court having jurisdiction in the area where the plaintiff lives or in the county court where the plaintiff lives. Anyone who relenquishes a radio to Motorola on the basis of a letter from Motorola has a fool for a lawyer.

Chris

N9LLO wrote: Anyone who relenquishes a radio to Motorola on the basis of a letter from Motorola has a fool for a lawyer.
Chris

As opposed to the lawyers Motorola has. An example of the nightmare they are capable of causing: A request for summary judgement from them was over 2000 pages.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that you give them ANYTHING.

Just that if you get into a pissing contest with their lawyers, be prepared for a long and costly process.

Jeff

stay-con wrote:An example of the nightmare they are capable of causing: A request for summary judgment from them was over 2000 pages.

I know some of my comments have been a bit cryptic at times. I apologize for that, but this is what I've been waiting for before I could tell you all the details.

The announcement you all have been waiting for:

United States District Court Central California.
CV04-2655 Motorola vs. Harold Pick et al.

25 May 2005. Today in court.

Judge A B Collins presiding.

Based on the final decision of the Champion spark plug case, 9th district court of appeals, (approximately 1947,) a used product sold as used is legal. Therefore, selling used Motorola radios as used radios is legal. Additionally, selling parts built radios is legal as long as they are sold as used.

Motorola failed to prove that these used radios or parts built radios are counterfeit or that they infringe on their copyright under the Lanham Act.

Patrick Harrington was found to lack believability as an expert witness.

-----------------------

Guess what people. Buying used XTS3000 handheld radios on eBay and bringing them back to life by swapping things around and replacing defective parts is LEGAL. Even the Nick Radios are LEGAL as long as they were sold as USED radios.

In the words of Sigmund Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Jeff

Excellent!

Pat really Auto-Moderated that one up.

I pity the fools, if any, who actually sent their radios to /\/\.

Quite a few sent them in.

SG

stay-con wrote: United States District Court Central California.
CV04-2655 Motorola vs. Harold Pick et al.

Anyone care to post the full case notes from somewhere online?

I tried to get the info, but it looks like they make you get an account and pay 8¢ per page for the privelege.

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl

spectragod wrote:Quite a few sent them in.

SG

Hopefully those who did so raise hell in Schaumburg with this court decision, and get their gear back.

For all those who lost sleep over this, rest well brothers.

Thanks for the news, Jeff/Stay-Con.

stay-con wrote:

stay-con wrote:An example of the nightmare they are capable of causing: A request for summary judgment from them was over 2000 pages.

I know some of my comments have been a bit cryptic at times. I apologize for that, but this is what I've been waiting for before I could tell you all the details.

The announcement you all have been waiting for:

United States District Court Central California.
CV04-2655 Motorola vs. Harold Pick et al.

25 May 2005. Today in court.

Judge A B Collins presiding.

Based on the final decision of the Champion spark plug case, 9th district court of appeals, (approximately 1947,) a used product sold as used is legal. Therefore, selling used Motorola radios as used radios is legal. Additionally, selling parts built radios is legal as long as they are sold as used.

Motorola failed to prove that these used radios or parts built radios are counterfeit or that they infringe on their copyright under the Lanham Act.

Patrick Harrington was found to lack believability as an expert witness.

-----------------------

Guess what people. Buying used XTS3000 handheld radios on eBay and bringing them back to life by swapping things around and replacing defective parts is LEGAL. Even the Nick Radios are LEGAL as long as they were sold as USED radios.

In the words of Sigmund Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Jeff

Incredible... so what's the difference with what Nick did? If the judge ruled that there was nothing wrong with selling the radios used or made from parts?

Speaking of parts built radios, check out what they've done with the MT500. http://www.theportableclinic.com
I guess the same rules that apply to the MT500 now applies to the XTS.

Hoseman292 wrote:Incredible... so what's the difference with what Nick did?

Nick caved in.

Jeff

Doesn't look like that judge is listed with the 9th circut court, and I cannot get the case number to come up on the federal searches. Case number doesn't look right with the rest of the cases.

Anyone care to provide where this information came from? Until someone can provide a link or other factual information, I am calling this bogus for now.

I checked both the appeals and district court records...nada so far.

Patrick Harrington was found to lack believability as an expert witness.

I find that statement in itself to be #1 in the bogus factor, as I don't think you would see that in a court case as it was presented here on the board. Something just smells fishy.

Hate to disagree with a moderator but a quick search on the internet found this judges information

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov

Click on Judges Procedures & Schedule

Then Hon. Audrey B Collins

HAven't found the particular case info yet but this Judge does appear to be real with the US District Court in Central California.

Tony

I believe the 9th court referenced was where the Champion spark plug case was heard in 1947.

I may be wrong about this (lord knows I've been wrong before) but does this mean that Motorola has been knocked down a peg or two?

Pj wrote:Anyone care to provide where this information came from? Until someone can provide a link or other factual information, I am calling this bogus for now.

This information came from the people that were PRESENT in the court room.

The action Wednesday was in response to Motorola's "Motion for summary judgment."

Hon. Audrey B. Collins is very much a real person. Room 680 Edward R. Roybal Federal Building & Courthouse (Downtown LA) 255 E Temple St, Los Angeles 90012; (213) 894-3118.

The 9th District Court was where the Champion Spark Plug case was put to rest in 1947.

It probably won't show up online for a few days.

Stay-Con wrote:Patrick Harrington was found to lack believability as an expert witness.

I find that statement in itself to be #1 in the bogus factor, as I don't think you would see that in a court case as it was presented here on the board. Something just smells fishy.

Well, without resorting to an ad homonym attack, all I'll say is you should probably look elsewhere for the source of that fishy smell.

The judge said that Patrick Harrington lacks believability as an expert witness.

This was directly a result of my declaration regarding Patrick Harrington's "inspection" of the 17 XTS3000 radios at the Los Angeles County Office of Public Safety a few months ago.

I pointed out a couple of things regarding his "inspection." (1) When Patrick Harrington had the radios physically dissembled to check for counterfeit parts he instructed the technician to "don't bother looking under that shield, there's nothing there."

Sorry folks, that shield covered the Vocoder.

And, (2) If indeed they, Motorola, were claiming that being counterfeit radios, they wouldn't perform to the same specifications as a factory radio, then where was the service monitor?

There's NO way you can test transmit frequency and receive sensitivity on a radio with just a laptop running RSS.

The Judge's comments with regards to my declaration, "I don't know how a radio works, but this man is certainly believable."

The only thing bogus about all this are the actions taken by Motorola and Patrick Harrington.

Jeff

I went by what was on the actual website for the court, and she wasn't listed as a judge. I recieved an email that showed her listed elsewhere, but she listed on the courts actual website.

In addition, the court case number and a search of the court would not return any information and that docket information was not present on that day while others were.

So basically, nothing "real" was being returned on the information posted here, while other court cases that day from the same court where. So one has to ask, why is this one case not showing up?

With all the slamming going on each way, its very easy to be skeptical.

Either way, if you read my orginal post, it was in response in how it was presented to the board as it was posted...
I am inclined to believe that this actually happened, but I would still prefer to read the black and white text of the court...that's just me.

Pj wrote:I went by what was on the actual website for the court, and she wasn't listed as a judge. I recieved an email that showed her listed elsewhere, but she listed on the courts actual website.

She is listed on the Central District of California U.S.D.C. website, which is the court in question:

http://tinyurl.com/8lsp6

Pj wrote:In addition, the court case number and a search of the court would not return any information and that docket information was not present on that day while others were.

So basically, nothing "real" was being returned on the information posted here, while other court cases that day from the same court where. So one has to ask, why is this one case not showing up?

With all the slamming going on each way, its very easy to be skeptical.

Either way, if you read my orginal post, it was in response in how it was presented to the board as it was posted...
I am inclined to believe that this actually happened, but I would still prefer to read the black and white text of the court...that's just me.

Did you just search the website, or did you actually log on to the court's PACER system in search of the information?