http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html


I guess Robeson REALLY didn't like my Part 15 remarks... bb

wrote in message
ps.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

One could take the garage door opener manufacturer to small claims
court...and win...unless the manufacturer specifically warned that their
system could be rendered useless anytime at the discretion of the military
(which I highly doubt they did). A good attorney might even consider a class
action lawsuit on this one and make lots of money. The manufacturers knew
the risk and gambled. Their customers lost.

On Feb 26, 9:51?pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

One could take the garage door opener manufacturer to small claims
court...and win...unless the manufacturer specifically warned that their
system could be rendered useless anytime at the discretion of the military
(which I highly doubt they did). A good attorney might even consider a class
action lawsuit on this one and make lots of money. The manufacturers knew
the risk and gambled. Their customers lost.

I doubt that, Stefan, but you never know.

Having read your item here I turned over a couple of radios
(broadcast types) that I have here in the house, and both of them had
the usual Part 15 caveat about "may not cause harm" and "must accept
interference from" paragraphs, so the manufcturers ARE "warning"
people about such uses.

Granted, John Q Public probably never reads those warnings, and
if they did, has no idea what they mean.

This isn't a new event, either. There was a similar rash of
consumer device failures in and around MCAS El Toro, CA, MCAS(H)
Tustin, CA, and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in the mid-80's.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 26, 9:51?pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

One could take the garage door opener manufacturer to small claims
court...and win...unless the manufacturer specifically warned that their
system could be rendered useless anytime at the discretion of the
military
(which I highly doubt they did). A good attorney might even consider a
class
action lawsuit on this one and make lots of money. The manufacturers knew
the risk and gambled. Their customers lost.

I doubt that, Stefan, but you never know.

Having read your item here I turned over a couple of radios
(broadcast types) that I have here in the house, and both of them had
the usual Part 15 caveat about "may not cause harm" and "must accept
interference from" paragraphs, so the manufcturers ARE "warning"
people about such uses.

Granted, John Q Public probably never reads those warnings, and
if they did, has no idea what they mean.

This isn't a new event, either. There was a similar rash of
consumer device failures in and around MCAS El Toro, CA, MCAS(H)
Tustin, CA, and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in the mid-80's.

I'm sure the Government warning is there but I would sue anyway. They
probably would not bother to show up in court and I would win by default. If
they were so inclined to show up, they would have to pay attorney's fees
higher than the manufacturer's cost of the probably so they might even go
for a settlement or allow a default judgement against them. This is not
occaisional interference; what it means is that one day your product simply
ceases to function.

On Feb 26, 9:51?pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

One could take the garage door opener manufacturer to small claims
court...and win...unless the manufacturer specifically warned that their
system could be rendered useless anytime at the discretion of the military
(which I highly doubt they did). A good attorney might even consider a class
action lawsuit on this one and make lots of money. The manufacturers knew
the risk and gambled. Their customers lost.

But who are you going to sue?

This has gone around-and-around before and the "consumer" always
comes up on the short end of the stick simply because the manufacturer
DOES show up with a copy of the law under their arm, demonstrates that
their device IS in compliance, and that is, as they say, that.

It's a simple matter to engineer in additional filtering, but
with extra filtering comes extra cost. However with the transmitting
unit restricted to the radiation limits of Part 15, it still won't
take much in a strong field to overcome even rudimentary filtering.

Good luck with the case, though...Do let us know how it goes.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 26, 9:51?pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

One could take the garage door opener manufacturer to small claims
court...and win...unless the manufacturer specifically warned that their
system could be rendered useless anytime at the discretion of the
military
(which I highly doubt they did). A good attorney might even consider a
class
action lawsuit on this one and make lots of money. The manufacturers knew
the risk and gambled. Their customers lost.

But who are you going to sue?

You would sue the one with deep pockets, probably the manufacturer but it
could also be home depot or sears or wherever one purchased it.

This has gone around-and-around before and the "consumer" always
comes up on the short end of the stick simply because the manufacturer
DOES show up with a copy of the law under their arm, demonstrates that
their device IS in compliance, and that is, as they say, that.

It is compliant, yes. But it doesn't work. That is the basis of the suit in
small claims court.

It's a simple matter to engineer in additional filtering, but
with extra filtering comes extra cost. However with the transmitting
unit restricted to the radiation limits of Part 15, it still won't
take much in a strong field to overcome even rudimentary filtering.

The manufacturer can then be ordered to provide all customers with a free
filter upgrade, depending on what the judge says.


Good luck with the case, though...Do let us know how it goes.

Well, I'm not doing the suing...but I would if it happened to me, believe
me.

On Feb 26, 9:04�pm, wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

I guess Robeson REALLY didn't like my Part 15 remarks... *bb

Other than the fact that the article involved the Marine Corps, I
am wondering what that article had to do with me, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

On Feb 27, 4:40 pm, "K4YZ" wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:04?pm, wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

I guess Robeson REALLY didn't like my Part 15 remarks... ?bb

Other than the fact that the article involved the Marine Corps, I
am wondering what that article had to do with me, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

You were a Marine?

On Feb 27, 7:38�pm, wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:40 pm, "K4YZ" wrote:

On Feb 26, 9:04?pm, wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

I guess Robeson REALLY didn't like my Part 15 remarks... ?bb

* * *Other than the fact that the article involved the Marine Corps, I
am wondering what that article had to do with me, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

You were a Marine?

"Sorry, Hans, MARS IS ham radio." :-)

It is very doubtful he was ever an 18-year-active-duty USMC
person. There has been NO, repeat NO PROOF
of that available to anyone in here. No document copies,
not even a snapshot of him IN the service.

73, LA

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 27, 7:38?pm, wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:40 pm, "K4YZ" wrote:

On Feb 26, 9:04?pm, wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/26/sig....ap/index.html

I guess Robeson REALLY didn't like my Part 15 remarks... ?bb

Other than the fact that the article involved the Marine Corps, I
am wondering what that article had to do with me, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

You were a Marine?

* "Sorry, Hans, MARS IS ham radio." :-)

This assertion is simply not correct. In order to join MARS and receive a
MARS call sign, one must be approved by a branch of the military service for
that purpose and one must be a present, retired or family member of a
military member. Additionally, there are separate MARS frequencies outside
of the allocations reserved for the amateur service that are excluded from
regular Part 97 use.

How can Len say MARS is "ham" radio?

It is a special military radio service. I think Mr. Anderson may be too
devoured in the treasured memories of his old Austin Healy with the 23
channel CB (before his XYL made him sell both) to think logiocally about
matters concerning real amateur radio (i.e., not 11m).