Looks like AT&T's not getting its holiday wish after all -- a federal judge just ruled against Ma Bell's request to have Verizon's Map For That ads pulled off the air. That doesn't mean that this whole thing is over, though: the judge called the ads "sneaky" and said that it was possible people might misunderstand them because "most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic." Whether or not that's enough to support a legal conclusion that the ads are misleading is a fight for another day -- specifically December 16th, when AT&T will have a second chance to argue its case. Still, this is a big win for Verizon -- everyone ready to be inundated with these ads for the next month?

Sure, Verizon's doubled down on the 3G map ads in response to AT&T's false advertising lawsuit, but eventually the company's lawyers had to file a response and, well, ain't nobody backing down in this one. Here's the freaking introduction:

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.

Yeah. It's gonna be like that. Verizon goes on to argue that even AT&T concedes the maps are accurate, and that pulling any of the ads off the air without proof that they're misleading consumers would be unfair, and that at the very least both parties need time to investigate further. Honestly? We've read it over a couple times now and while the legal arguments are certainly interesting, it's hard not to get the impression that Verizon drafted this response with publication in mind -- check out this quote:

In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon's side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T's confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business, and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly.

See what we mean? Now, we still think there's some merit to the idea that Verizon's ads improperly conflate 3G coverage area with 3G service quality, but that's really not what AT&T's arguing -- hell, it's busy pimping EDGE. We'll see if these two can solve their differences and get back to work, but we've got the feeling this thing ain't over yet.

Update: Here's the PDF, in case you're interested.

Well, you knew this was coming -- AT&T's amended its advertising lawsuit against Verizon to include Big Red's new holiday ads, including that oh-so-cute Island of Misfit Toys spot, and demanded that they be taken off the air. At question is the same map of AT&T's 3G coverage used in the other commercial, which Ma Bell says misleads customers into thinking it has no service at all in large swaths of the country. Best part? AT&T's lawyers had to describe the ad in their new filing, leading to passages like this:

The spotted elephant, in a surprised manner, asks the iPhone "What are you doing here? You can download apps and browse the web!" and a Dolly for Sue asserts that "Yeah. People will love you [the iPhone]."

Happy holidays, folks.

Read - Digital Daily
Read - AT&T's amended complaint [PDF]

Whoa -- we just got word that AT&T is suing Verizon for false advertising over Big Red's "There's a map for that" ads. We're reading the complaint and motion to stop the ads right now, but here's what AT&T says is the big problem:

In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn't offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T's wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon's misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T's strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers... and we've beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn -- a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.

AT&T also says its network reaches about the same number of people as Verizon's, so we're thinking it's a little miffed that it's being portrayed as an also-ran here. We'll update as we learn more, keep it locked!

Update: So this seems like a very narrow lawsuit, actually. As we've been told, AT&T thinks Verizon is trying to fool viewers into thinking that they can't use any AT&T phone services outside of 3G coverage areas by showing two essentially different maps. Since Verizon's entire network is 3G, the gaps in the red map are actual service gaps -- but Verizon doesn't show that the gaps on the AT&T map might be covered by AT&T's huge 2G network. We can see how that could be misleading, but at some point you've got to compare apples to apples, and AT&T even says it has "no quarrel with Verizon advertising its larger 3G network" in its complaint, so we'll see how the court reacts.

Update 2: Interestingly, Verizon's already changed the ads once at AT&T's behest, editing them to remove the phrase "out of touch" and adding a "Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas" small print disclaimer at the end. Apparently that wasn't enough for AT&T, which says the ads still confuse non-technical viewers into thinking AT&T provides no service at all outside of its 3G coverage.

Update 3: Okay, we've read everything -- there's really not much more to this suit than the arguments over the maps. We're thinking Verizon could have easily dealt with this by just using dark blue and light blue on the AT&T map to differentiate between 3G and 2G coverage, but at this point we don't think Ma Bell is all that interested in anything except getting these ads off the air. All that said, it's hard to deny that Verizon's ads made a perfectly valid point: using an iPhone on AT&T's network in New York or San Francisco is an exercise in frustration, regardless of whether you have 2G or 3G, and we've had zero problems on Verizon. Let's just hope AT&T is working as hard to fight these ads with its actual service as it is with its lawyers.

Boom. Nokia's just hit Apple with a patent infringement lawsuit, claiming that "all iPhones models shipped" infringe on ten of Espoo's patents relating to GSM, UMTS, and WiFi. According to Nokia's press release, the patents in question have been licensed by some 40 other companies, "including virtually all the leading mobile device vendors," and Apple's refused to agree to "appropriate" license terms. That's pretty vague, actually -- it could either mean that Apple was willing to license the patents at a price less than what Nokia demanded, or it could mean that Apple refused to pay at all. We'll obviously be covering this one in great detail as it progresses -- stay tuned for a fun decade or so of litigation.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Considering Sprint's financial position and the overall credit market, we're not exactly sure where the carrier managed to pick up $831 million, which it promptly used to acquire affiliate iPCS and take on $405 million of net debt. If you'll recall, the aforesaid youngin' was worrying papa way back in May of 2008, and it seems that Sprint has finally had enough of this whole "litigation" thing. The acquisition puts all of the court battling to rest (or at least it's expected to), enabling the operator to stop divesting its iDEN network in select iPCS markets. Money may not buy happiness, but it sure buys a good muzzle.

[Via Reuters]

Last year, MetroPCS kicked off the respectably ballsy practice of inviting competitors' subscribers to bring their CDMA phones over to get flashed for use on its network, prompting Virgin -- a carrier that plays in the same value space as MetroPCS -- to take issue. Long story short, Virgin ended up filing a lawsuit against MetroPCS citing a couple claims: one, that MetroPCS is willfully interfering with Virgin's customer contracts, and two, that the flashing ultimately results in a trademark violation since Virgin's logo is still on the phone. Funny how law works, isn't it? Anyhow, a court's thrown out the contract claim but is allowing the trademark issue to proceed, making this an interesting one to watch. In the meantime, anyone looking at bailing to MetroPCS and planning on taking some hardware along for the ride might want to look into that sooner rather than later -- you never know what sorts of injunctions might come out of this.

[Via Phone Scoop]

So this is interesting: apparently Google's hit the developer of the Cyanogen modded Android ROM with a cease-and-desist letter, asking him to stop distributing the closed-source Google apps like Gmail, Maps, and YouTube. What's a little strange is that Cyanogen is targeted at "Google Experience" devices like the G1 and myTouch, so it's not like Google is really protecting anything here -- leading us to wonder if they're just using the copyright argument to shut down a popular mod that's tempted over 30,000 users into rooting their phones. That's just speculation on our part, though -- the dev says he's trying to open a dialogue with Google, so perhaps we'll find out some more answers soon.

[Via Android and Me]

Corporate legal teams are so large, so powerful, and often so evenly-matched that when you combine them with the glacial wheels of justice, patent disputes can take years to resolve -- in fact, we'd say it's the rule rather than the exception -- and inevitably, they end in anticlimactic fashion with the alleged offender agreeing to shell out some fraction of the plaintiff's original request in exchange for sweeping the whole matter under the rug. Nokia's had its fair share of such spats, and one that's been dogging the company for a good long while now is with InterDigital, which has been systematically targeting firms in the industry for years with claims that it holds patents inherently required for UMTS -- in other words, if you make UMTS gear, you automatically owe InterDigital money. Of course, Nokia has been politely disagreeing with that claim all along, and the US International Trade Commission has just issued an initial determination in its favor, saying that it doesn't violate the four patents InterDigital's all worked up over. For the record, the US ITC has been investigating this issue for a solid two years now, so yeah, if someone's ripping off your IP, don't expect a speedy resolution. The commission's initial determination will be followed by a final, binding determination this December; in the meantime; Espoo "will continue to present its case." Now that we think about it, we're pretty sure we saw this episode of Law & Order already.

Research in Motion hit a milestone today, only "achievement" wouldn't necessarily be the best way to describe it. The BlackBerry maker has finally ended a long-running patent dispute with Visto Corp., paying out $267.5 million to settle the matter -- a much larger fee than the $7.7 million Visto got from Seven Networks, but conversely a fraction of the reported $612.5 million RIM paid to settle with NTP years back. With it, however, comes a fully paid license to use Visto's patents, and some of the plaintiff's intellectual property by way of transferred ownership. So now that we can move on from that dispute, who's next to take the mantle and vie for a piece of BlackBerry's pie?

Sprint's fight with iPCS continues to wage on multiple fronts, all of which have been ongoing for eons -- especially the whole iDEN tussle in the wake of Sprint's merger with Nextel. Most recently, that little soap opera had seen an Illinois court rule that Sprint's got to divest some iPCS-controlled iDEN markets to bring it back into contractual compliance and restore Mother Nature's balance, and now Sprint's gotten around to announcing how that process is going to work. In short, it seems like a free-for-all -- the company has apparently put out a few feelers for buyers, but anyone it hasn't contacted is invited to hook up with Citi, who's managing the ordeal on Sprint's behalf. The carrier says that it expects everything to be squared away by January 25 of next year, which is when the court-imposed deadline falls; in the meantime, subscribers, stay cool, because Sprint says that service will continue uninterrupted and expects any transition to be seamless.

Sure, Sprint and Palm are hoping the Pre turns the page on their relatively dark recent past, but karma's a bitch sometimes -- the other Palm news this week is that Sprint and Palm have settled a class-action lawsuit alleging the two companies misled customers into thinking there'd be WiFi and Bluetooth accessories for the Treo 600. Remember how crushed we all were when nothing ever hit the market? The pain was almost immeasurable -- unless you're a class-action settlement attorney, in which case you instinctively know anyone who bought a Sprint Treo 600 before October 27, 2004 is owed either a $20 Sprint service credit or a $27.50 credit to be used in Palm's online store. So, anyone still have their Treo 600 receipts from 2004? Yeah, we didn't think so.

[Via TamsPalm]

This one goes back a little ways, but a U.S. District Court in Seattle has now given the go ahead to a class action lawsuit brought by former AT&T Wireless subscribers, who have complained that their service went downhill after the company was bought by Cingular and ultimately became the new AT&T. They're also not too happy that they were forced to pay to get new Cingular phones, and they're now asking that AT&T pay back all those extra charges, plus the usual damages, of course. For its part, AT&T isn't saying anything more than that it "respectfully" disagrees with the court's decision, and that it's now studying the ruling and considering its options.

Modern phones deeply rely on the ability to efficiently switch between two, three, or even more bands, a sad reality of the patchwork map of available spectrum the nations of the world have imposed on themselves. That kind of multiband tech requires really awesome miniaturized antenna tech, and a Spanish company, Fractus, says that a whole bunch of the world's top-tier manufacturers are blatantly violating its IP in the field. It's suing Samsung, LG, RIM, Pantech, Kyocera, Palm, HTC, Sharp, UTStarcom, and Sanyo for allegedly infringing on a total of nine patents it holds; the company doesn't specify what kinds of damages it's seeking, but something tells us it's a huge-ish number. Considering that we're pretty big fans of reception, this is a suit we can kinda get behind -- assuming Fractus' claims are legit, of course.

[Via Phone Scoop]

Sprint affiliate iPCS' post-Nextel merger beef with the carrier goes beyond the Nextel market issue; they've also been making noise over the deal that has married Sprint's WiMAX efforts with Clearwire's, claiming that it's sharing awesome technology and other "benefits" with Clearwire that it also has a legal obligation to share with its affiliates. To that end, the Illinois-based company has scored another court win that allows its WiMAX-related lawsuit to proceed, though not without also dropping a claim to collect "undetermined" damages against Sprint that the judge determined iPCS was not entitled to collect under the terms of its agreement. Like the endless Nokia / Qualcomm and Broadcom / Qualcomm legal dramas, this is shaping up to be one for the ages -- so sit back, relax, get your popcorn ready, and make sure you've got a full legal reference at your side.

[Via Phone Scoop]