All Articles Tagged lawsuit

Speaking of the ongoing ad-war between AT&T and Verizon, according to CNET:

A federal judge in Atlanta Wednesday declined to grant AT&T a temporary restraining order that would force Verizon to stop showing the ads.

So the “map for that” campaign can continue, even as AT&T counters on the marketing front with “side by side“.

On the legal front, though certainly a set back, we’re sure AT&T’s lawyers want to get as much as they can out of this legal challenges will continue as well.

By now most of you have seen the infamous Verizon “map for that” attack ads against AT&T. It was only a matter of time before we heard Verizon’s response to the lawsuit [Full document PDF link] that AT&T recently slapped them with and respond they did. Verizon’s lawyers put their heads together to come up with the following opening line:

AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s “There’s A Map For That” advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.

Ouch, if you continue reading the lengthy document you will find that Verizon does not intend to remove the ads from the air unless it is forced to. They also claim AT&T agrees the map coverage is indeed accurate and before anything progresses both parties need to do some more of their own investigating into the matter.

All of this really isn’t necessary, both parties should agree to carry along and spend their time doing something more productive – improving both of their respective networks.

[Via Engadget Mobile]

Ho-ho-hold on a minute, Verizon — AT&T’s not finding much to laugh about in those new anti-AT&T iPhone “map for that” commercials that show a teensy, tiny blue GSM/HSPA 3G footprint compared the ginormous country painted CDMA/EVDO red. In fact, AT&T is amending their original lawsuit to include those new misfit toys, Santa’s workshop, and blue Christmas ads.

“Contrary to the image presented in the Verizon ads, our wireless network is pervasive,” said an AT&T spokesman. “It covers over 300 million people, or 97 percent of the U.S. population. Our fastest, or 3G, network covers approximately 233 million people, or 75 percent of the U.S. population….[Verizon's] use of white space is misleading.”

In other words, AT&T is saying Verizon’s 3G coverage of mountains and lakes is impressive for the fish and eagles, but they think they have the humans and their “cities” covered just fine, thanks. (Though, again, NYC and SF might disagree…)

Digital Daily has the whole, amended, complaint for your reading pleasure. Let us know your take.

Verizon’s “Map for That” ad was witty and kicked AT&T right where it hurt most — right in the network. AT&T, naturally, didn’t find it so amusing and has now decided to take Verizon to court. Engadget has been covering (and updating the coverage) today, and here’s where it stands:

• AT&T complained that the original ad was misleading, saying customers could still use iPhones outside of 3G coverage (on EDGE).
• Verizon has apparently already changed the ad once, adding some small print to disclaim the above.
• AT&T still isn’t happy, thinks Verizon is confusing customers, and thus is sicking the lawyers on them.

What do you think? Were you confused, or were you too busy laughing (or crying, if you live in SF or NYC).

Engadget’s resident legal gadget eagle, Nilay Patel, has put together a great, depth analysis of Nokia’s recent lawsuit against Apple and the iPhone over patent infringement.

As usual, the race to hype this dispute as a bitter standoff between two tech giants desperate to destroy one another has all but ignored the reality of how patents — especially wireless patents — are licensed, what Nokia’s actually asking for, and how it might go about getting it. And as you know, we just don’t do things that way, so we’ve asked our old friend Mathew Gavronski, a patent attorney in the Chicago office of Michael Best & Friedrich, to help us sort things out and figure out what’s really going on here — read on for more.

In a nutshell, Nokia believes Apple is infringing on 10 patents that are core to GSM/UTMS/Wi-Fi. All the other major players have paid up. Apple hasn’t. Apple may believe the patent fees are already paid by the manufacturer of the components they bought for the iPhone, or they may just be using the legal system as way to negotiate a lower ultimate licensing fee from Nokia.

If the area interests you, check out the whole analysis and then let us know what you think!

Out sibling site NokiaExperts.com brings word that Nokia is suing Apple in Delaware court. Why-for?

ten patents related to GSM, UMTS, and WLAN standards that Nokia states they established after investing more than EUR 40 billion in R&D over the last 20 years. Nokia stated that they have successfully entered into license agreements including these patents with approximately 40 companies, including virtually all the leading mobile device vendors, allowing the industry to benefit from Nokia’s innovation.

Seems other companies have coughed up the cash to use them, but Apple’s waiting for a court to force their hand. With $35 billion in the bank, they can obviously afford to give a fortune away to the lawyers, but why go to the effort? Do they really think a court will somehow dismiss the patents as invalid?

Pass the popcorn, get ready for some patent pugilism, and let us know what you think!

Apple and AT&T are being sued in Louisiana over the lack of MMS available for iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS users running iPhone 3.0 software. Now, it’s gotten to the point where TiPb doesn’t pay too much attention to Apple lawsuits anymore just because they’re so frequent we’d need to get the blog roomier pants, and while we’re not lawyers and can’t comment as to the merits of this case, it’s yet another (painful) reminder that AT&T has dropped the ball when it comes to MMS on the iPhone and especially when it comes to communicating what’s happening — and keeping updated — their long suffering user base.

Says TG Daily:

Apple, says the filings, has revealed that AT&T has never upgraded its towers so as to support MMS functionality. “The only excuse offered by AT&T and Apple is a mouseprint disclaimer on the website, in barely readable font, which reads ‘MMS Support from AT&T coming in late summer’”.

That’s the part where it kind of falls down for us, however. Now, I’m not on AT&T, but several of our readers are and as part of beta tests and carrier tests, some of them have indeed sent MMS messages on AT&T, and AT&T’s website seems to show it working for other phones, so… huh?

Is this once again an absurd claim distracting from the real issue — that summer grows later and later, and there’s still no word on iPhone MMS from AT&T? What are they waiting for, a Special Music Event?!

[Thanks to Gregg for the tip!]

Another week, another iPhone lawsuit or three. If it isn’t American’s complaining about AT&T’s 3G “network” (so bad, it’s made (Giga)Om Malik abandon his iPhone), it’s owners of white iPhones complaining about cracks in their plastic casings (which is effecting other, non-iPhones as well, making us suspect someone spike a plastic factory somewhere in China). This time, however, it’s a patent dispute, and it’s not Apple going after Palm, but Picsel Technologies taking it to Apple. According to Apple Insider:

By using particular techniques to speed up panning and zooming for images and other documents, Apple is effectively borrowing Picsel’s own acceleration to make the iPhone work as smoothly as it does, the complaint reads. [..]Unlike many of these suits, the plaintiff already has major customers for its software that primarily include Japanese firms like KDDI and Sharp but also include American phone manufacturers such as Motorola and Palm.

So even though Apple now owns multi-touch(ish), they may not be allowed to show it working on screen? Gotta love patent poker…

What’s the one thing worse than bloggers offering opinions about the likelihood of an Apple vs. Palm patent fight? That’s right! Analysts! (Where’s our magic 8 ball for a dissenting view when we need it?!)

PreCentral.net picks up just such a story on how one analyst thinks Apple’s IP claims against Palm just might be — wait for it! — fruitless:

Though the review of granted and filed patents shows that Apple has a “formidable arsenal of capacitive, multi-touch patents that constitute a nearly impenetrable barrier to entry for companies hoping to commercialize capacitive, multi-touch devices,” Perez-Fernandez also noted that Apple’s key patents may be “invalidated based on prior art considerations if subjected to a review by the USPTO.”

Prior art can trump all, unless Apple’s own early patents, or the ones it acquired from Fingerworks, are the most “prior” of relevant art in question.

Of course, Apple has $30 billion reasons more than Palm for just why it might press its case anyway, even if it’s ultimately unsuccessful…

Following up on Apple Chief Operating Officer, Tim Cook’s comments during yesterday’s Q1 conference call, and the supposition that he was hinting that Apple may just take legal action against the Palm Pre for violating Apple’s intellectual property (i.e. patents), PC Mag quotes a reaction from Palm:

A spokeswoman at Palm said Thursday that the company has not been contacted by Apple’s legal team, to her knowledge. “Palm has a long history of innovation, obviously reflected in our own products and our own robust apps portfolio,” she said. “We have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space. If we’re faced with legal action, we’re confident that we have the tools to defend ourselves.”

When asked whether gestures like “pinching” were universal, or belonged to Apple, the Palm spokeswoman said that “our position is that multitouch has been around a long, long, long time before Apple introduced it.”

We learned that Apple first began patenting multi-touch in 2004 and acquired additional patents when they bought Fingerworks in 2005, but is Palm hinting that — as PreCentral.net pointed out — they may have some patents of their own to fight back with?

Curiouser and curiouser…