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: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.
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.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.
Update: Here's the PDF, in case you're interested.
Verizon's response to AT&T: 'the truth hurts'
*Verizon is currently in the process of acquiring AOL, Engadget's parent company. However, Engadget maintains full editorial control, and Verizon will have to pry it from our cold, dead hands.