Now this is some outcome, isn’t it? No more court dates, no more attacks, nothing more. Just a calm landscape between AT&T and Verizon; so don’t expect to see Luke Wilson staring into your face, pleading that AT&T has the better network. Or maybe we will see more of him? (Cringe on that thought). Now somebody get moving with your network to claim the “Most Reliable 3G Network” award (and tagline) so something like this doesn’t happen again. In the meantime, this is done.
AT&T has just lost the first round of the “There’s a Map for That” case. The judge dismissed AT&T’s wish for all of Verizon’s ads to be pulled off the air. But one interesting note: the judge said the ads were “sneaky”, and that people might be mislead because “most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic.” He could be right?? We’ll know for sure soon, since the next hearing is on December 16th.
But that’s another fight for another day, so far Verizon is winning this.
UPDATED: According to Boy Genius Report, AT&T has launched their own ad against Verizon. Here it is:
This is the true declaration of war between AT&T and Verizon Wireless. As many of you have heard, AT&T filed a lawsuit against Verizon claiming that Verizon’s “There’s a Map for That” ad misleads customers into thinking AT&T’s 3G coverage sucks, which is actually true. In return, Verizon released 3 more ads mocking AT&T once again. Now things have reached boiling point, and here’s Verizon’s 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.
The truth does hurt, and that’s probably hurting AT&T right now. Here’s another part of the legal docs that Big Red filed:
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.
Verizon looks like they are thinking alot about the consumer from the above statement. Check out all 53 documents over at Engadget.
If you’re part of Psystar, prepare your bunker; because Apple won its case against Psystar in California. Of course Psystar would lose, it’s a clear copyright infringement of hacking OS X and porting it to other computers then selling it. Of course there’s a load of other things Psystar could be held accountable for (and should). Check out the link (warning PDF) for the whole explanation.
AT&T is suing Verizon because AT&T claims that due to the “There’s a Map for That” ad that Verizon is running, it makes the coverage they provide look like nothing. AT&T also claims that the ad shows AT&T has almost no 3G coverage across the country. Now here’s the interesting part of this story: When you look at AT&T’s claims, you would think that there is basically no phone coverage at all that AT&T provides. But now to the facts: the map only represents 3G coverage and video. Not basic 2G. So basically, AT&T is mad that dumb some people don’t understand that, if it confuses them, it makes AT&T’s network look terrible (and it is).
AT&T’s accusation:
Consumers are interpreting the white or blank space on the maps to mean that AT&T customers who are not in an AT&T “3G” coverage area have no wireless coverage whatsoever, and therefore have no ability to use their wireless devices for any purposes in vast areas of the country. This interpretation is not surprising as Verizon, in its own coverage maps, uses white space to inform customers that no coverage of any kind exists.
Not to ruin AT&T’s parade on using my money to launch a lawsuit, but Verizon is right here. AT&T’s 3G network is terrible in San Fransisco and even worse in New York. AT&T, here’s a deal: use the money you snatch out of my pocket to improve your service, then we can file lawsuits on everybody.
