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.

VIZIO sure ends up in a whole lot of legal battles, but one way or another, it always seems to find its way out in the long run. Such is the case once again today, as the current LCD TV king has apparently said all the right things to Sony. If you'll recall, Sony (along with a slew of others) filed suit against Vizio awhile back over patent licensing concerns, but now it seems the two have reached a mutual agreement to use each other's technologies without bickering over who owns what. The release on the matter states that Sony "has become a licensee under VIZIO's patent portfolio," and that "VIZIO now is a licensee under Sony's color television patent portfolio." Who knows how much under-the-table cash and shaky promises had to be passed along in order to make everyone happy, but hey, a problem solved is a problem solved.

[Image courtesy of TooMuchNick / WireImage]

Update: Sony's response to all of this is after the break, courtesy of a company spokesperson who pinged us directly.

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]

[Via Cnet]

Remember back in May 2008 when Dell was found guilty of "engaging in deceptive business practices related to financing promotions for its computers and technical support?" Yeah, those were the days, and now just 15 and a half months after the verdict, the computer maker is now paying up to the tune of $4 million -- not as paltry as its $30,000 Taiwan fine, but still less than one percent of its quarterly profits. We know, it's the thought the counts.

We won't go so far as to compare this to the epic multi-year Broadcom vs. Qualcomm saga, but this is certainly shaping up to be the case that never ends, part II. Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent have been at each other's throats over various things since August of 2007, and while we've seen damages awarded and overturned a few times since, the latest ruling to be handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has A-L waiting a wee bit longer to get its (maybe) due. This past Friday, the court decided that while a $358 million damages award against Microsoft for "violating patents relating to technology that allows users to enter dates into calendars in its Outlook e-mail program" was somewhat legitimate, the damages were "unjustified." The result? The whole thing has to be retried, giving the contracted law firms for both companies immense joy.

When it rains it pours -- right on the heels of the punishing blow dealt to RealDVD, the money-laden Kaleidescape crowd suffered its own setback at the hands of the law. You just know that the DVD CCA (Copy Control Association) appealed the 2007 ruling that allowed Kaleidescape owners to rip DVDs to their media servers, and yesterday a California Appeals Court overturned that ruling. Next stop -- the Santa Clara Superior Court, which could place an injunction on Kaleidescape if the appeal is upheld. It's not over yet, but we're prepping the soundboard with ominous music, boos and noisy hand-wringing. Whatever (and whenever) the outcome, we can only hope that Blu-ray's Managed Copy comes to the scene sooner rather than later and settles this issue for our beloved HD content

Something tells us Kaleidescape has a man (or woman, to be fair) on the inside, else United States District Court Judge Marilyn Patel is just downright trifilin'. In every visible way, RealNetworks' proposed RealDVD player was exactly what Kaleidescape was, but for people with annual salaries far less than $9,854,392,220. Regardless of our opinion, a preliminary injunction has just been passed down from The Almighty in the robe, which blocks the sale of the RealDVD software here in the US. The six major movie studies filed the suit last September, alleging that it "illegally violated their right to restrict the use of their movies in digital form." Evidently those that matter agree. A RealNetworks spokesperson took the time to vent their feelings on the whole ordeal, and since we know you're curious, we've pasted it below for your convenience.

We are disappointed that a preliminary injunction has been placed on the sale of RealDVD. We have just received the Judge's detailed ruling and are reviewing it. After we have done so fully, we'll determine our course of action and will have more to say at that time.

[Via Electronista]

It seems we have yet another reason to volley complaints in Amazon's directions. 17-year old high school student Justin Gawronski had apparently been taking electronic notes and annotations on his Kindle for a summer assignment on George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Yeah, you can probably guess where this is going -- after the retailer remotely pulled the plug on that particular version of the book, Gawronski's notes were lost in the ethers, rendered useless. The suit, which is seeking class action status, asks that Amazon be legally blocked from improperly accessing users' Kindles in the future and punitive damages for those affected by the deletion -- and if he asks nice, we're pretty sure Jeff would write his teacher a note. [Warning: read link is a PDF]

[Via Trading Markets]

Do you have any idea where you head when you'd like to sue everyone on the face of the planet, make yourself look like a Class-A fool and get a mention right here? The Eastern District of Texas (Tyler) District court, that's where. The freshest meshuggeneh to head on down there and start trouble is Tsera, who's claiming that Apple, Microsoft, LG, Philips, Bang & Olufsen, iriver, Coby, Cowon and even Meizu are violating a patent that it owns. Said patent is titled "Methods and apparatus for controlling a portable electronic device using a touchpad," and evidently each of the aforesaid outfits have failed to pay Tsera for using its technology. Before you get all bent out of shape, you should realize that this case -- in all likelihood -- will simply be tossed out or settled away from the courtroom, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Tsera's never gonna be satisfied. Or taken seriously.

[Via The Register]

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?

It looks like at least one round of the battle between Funai and VIZIO is drawing to a close, and it's a big win for VIZIO. U.S. Customs has ruled that all current VIZIO TVs do not infringe on Funai's Patent 6,115,074 -- which was rejected by the Patent Office a few months ago. With the USPTO and US Customs now on the same page, all the bureaucratic checkmarks are in place and VIZIO TVs can freely enter the US on their immigrant-inspired journey to homes all across this fair land. Next up is VIZIO's countersuit against Funai -- with drama like this unfolding between TV manufacturers, who needs an actual TV for entertainment?

Truthfully, we're having a hard time coming to grips with this. For as long as we wished that these two would stop bickering, it's actually tough to swallow the fact that we'll never again be able to write about "yet another lawsuit" between Qualcomm and Broadcom (in theory, anyway). After nearly three full years of fighting with pencils, papers and soulless words, the courtroom throwdowns are finally ceasing. In a shocking development, the two rivals have entered into a settlement and multi-year patent agreement that will "result in the dismissal with prejudice of all litigation between the companies, including all patent infringement claims in the International Trade Commission and US District Court in Santa Ana, as well as the withdrawal by Broadcom of its complaints to the European Commission and the Korea Fair Trade Commission." The exact terms of the deal are posted after the break, though you should know that Qualcomm will have to shell out $891 million in cash (ouch!) over the next four years. The lawyers may be out of work, but you can rest assured that there's no shortage of abhorrence between these frenemies.

In what's being described as a landmark verdict, four men responsible for assisting throngs of dubious internet users to download all sorts of copyrighted material are being ushered off to prison cells for twelve whole months. The Stockholm district court in Sweden found the defendants guilty not of hosting materially illegally, but of "providing a website with sophisticated search functions, simple download and storage capabilities, and a tracker linked to the website [that helped users commit copyright violations]." As expected, the foursome seems unaffected by the ruling, with Peter Sunde (shown) tweeting that "it used to be only movies, now even verdicts are out before the official release." After jail, the crew will be forced by pay 30 million kronor ($3.56 million) to a number of entertainment companies, which is far less than those firms were hoping for. Curiously, we're told that the verdict didn't include an order to shut down The Pirate Bay website, and you can pretty much bank on an appeal being filed in record time.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]