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]

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.

The temporary injunction filed against HTC in Germany in its battle with patent holding firm IPCom has been repealed -- at least for now -- by an appellate court, allowing sales of forthcoming 3G devices bearing affected chipsets to continue until the case proceeds in four weeks' time. This should be absolutely splendid news for Germans concerned that the case might affect their ability to get in on the Magic come next month; ultimately, the case could theoretically lead to a sales stoppage, but the way things are lined up now, it seems like there'll be at least a slim window of opportunity for would-be owners to get their Android on without fear of IPCom putting the kibosh on the party. We'll continue to follow this drama as it progresses, but we'll reiterate what we'd said before: in all likelihood, this'll end with HTC shelling out some undisclosed settlement, and seeing how the company has already said that it's investigating alternative chipsets, it'll be a moot point before too long, anyway.

Is there a better way to ring in the first day of spring than with another lawsuit aimed at Apple and AT&T? Probably, but apparently not for Damone Dickerson, who has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that again takes aim at the pair over allegedly misleading claims about 3G speeds. According to Dickerson, he has only be able to connect to the 3G network a "fraction of the time," and when he was able to connect it did not provide "full and continual service." As a result, he's leveled a whole host of charges against the two companies, which he hopes will result in them changing their advertising and, of course, allow him to "recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages." No word from Apple or AT&T, naturally, but Apple has recently asked that a similar case in New York be dismissed.

As expected, Google and LG have joined Apple, AT&T, and Verizon in settling their visual voicemail patent lawsuits with Klausner Technologies. The LG agreement is the more straightforward of the two, since it covers LG devices like the Versa directly, but things get more complicated with Google since it doesn't actually make its own phones -- Klausner wouldn't say if the agreement shielded Android licensees from patent claims. We're hoping Google's attorneys got it all sorted out, but we'll see who else is next on Klausner's naughty list.

Read - Google
Read - LG

Anyone holding out for that April launch of HTC's Android-powered Magic in Germany might be in for a longer wait than they'd hoped thanks to -- you guessed it -- legal drama. It seems that patent holding company IPCom has gone after HTC over a series of patents related to UMTS in a Mannheim court; the legal eagles over there ruled late last month that there is some sort of violation taking place, so the targeted launch date could be in jeopardy if HTC doesn't come to the table and negotiate. For the record, this is the same IPCom that has a multi-billion dollar lawsuit pending against Nokia over the same patents, so HTC could be looking at some serious dough if they decide to play ball. Realistically, if we had to guess, this'll resolve itself quietly with a settlement totalling some small fraction of what IPCom wants, but it's something to keep an eye on.

[Via Engadget Japanese]

Nothing quite like a four- or five-figure phone bill to break your spirit, and in many circumstances, we can understand why your first reaction after opening such a bill might be "I'll sue the pants off of these people." Of course, contracts are pretty well ironclad thanks to the generations of overpaid lawyers that have perfected them over the years, and generally speaking, you've got to lie in the bed you've made -- but occasionally, a situation develops that's genuinely bogus. This one has been brewing for a while, actually, ever since AT&T and others decided to drop their unlimited data plans down to a 5GB cap: unexpected overage. A buyer of one of those $99 Aspire Ones bundled with an AT&T contract at Radio Shack got a shock of a bill after blowing past her 5GB cap, and while the individual should've certainly done a better job of understanding that the cap existed, shouldn't the carriers be shutting off data by default when you hit 5GB, or after just a very small amount of overage has developed? At any rate, she's suing AT&T and Radio Shack for her troubles -- and it looks like she's seeking class-action status -- so we'd love to see this spur companies into more proactively preventing nasty bills from developing in the first place.

While most folks welcome gaming devices that do more than simply play games, Texas-based Wall Wireless LLC seems to think that's a bit over the line, at least when it's not getting a piece of the action. More specifically, the little known company says that Sony, Nintendo, and Nokia are infringing on its patent for a "Method and Apparatus for Creating and Distributing Real-Time Interactive Media Content Through Wireless Communication Networks and the Internet," which apparently relates to someone distributing "messages having aural or visual content that is generated by the operator using handheld apparatuses such as mobile telephones." According to Wall Wireless, that patent not only covers the DS and PSP, but specific games like Mario Kart and Wipeout Pulse, and a whole host of Nokia's game-playing phones, including the N95, N93, and N82. As a result, it's seeking a permanent injunction against the allegedly infringing companies lest it be "irreparably harmed," as well as the usual damages, expenses, and attorney's fees, not to mention "pre-judgment and post-judgment interest."

[Via Register Hardware]

You've probably never heard of Picsel Technologies, but the Scottish company claims that its technologies are in over 250m handsets worldwide from manufacturers like Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Samsung and Sony Ericsson -- and, if a lawsuit it filed today is to be believed, Apple. Picsel says the iPhone infringes on a patented method of accelerated screen updating, and as usual, the answer is probably going to be for Uncle Steve to open his $25 billion piggy bank and dole out some cash. On the other hand, Apple legal might take a little batting practice before they start hunting the big game, but honestly, that's just us wishing for a little Friday night drama.

Uh oh, Ashton, it looks like Apple might have a thing or two to say about that jailbroken iPhone of yours. Every three years the Copyright Office asks for proposed exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's rules against breaking access protections, and this time around the lovable scamps at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have asked that jailbreaking phones -- like, yes, the iPhone -- be classified as one of those exceptions. As you might have guessed, Apple's response to the EFF isn't exactly supportive of the idea: it says the proposed rule will "destroy the technological protection of Apple's key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone." Both sides have filed long briefs supporting their positions with extremely detailed legal arguments, but the main takeaways are that the EFF thinks that allowing jailbreaking will result in more apps and innovation, and Apple points out that the App Store is already hugely successful and that jailbroken phones are technically running unauthorized modifications of Apple's copyrighted iPhone code that allows them to run pirated applications. Interestingly, Apple's convoluted App Store approval process is the center of a lot of discussion, and Apple is totally disengeniuous about it, saying there's no "duplication of functionality" rule and as proof claims to have allowed "multiple general web browsers... and multiple mail programs." Note to the Copyright Office: if you believe this we have a very nice bridge to sell you.

Now, let's be clear: while we're definitely hoping the EFF pulls this one out, the worst thing that can result of all this is the status quo -- Apple isn't asking for jailbreaking to specifically be ruled illegal, it's just asking that it not be specifically ruled legal. If that sounds like a fuzzy distinction, well, it is, but that's the sort of gray area that keeps everyone else out of court for the time being. We'll find out more in the spring, when the Copyright Office holds hearings -- final rulings are due in October.

Read - EFF page on the jailbreaking debate
Read - EFF's brief (PDF)
Read - Apple's reply (PDF)
Read - EFF's second brief (PDF)

Okay, so it's not just that Sprint can't offer service on iPCS' turf -- it's that they have to offload all that airspace, too. Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois has decided that Sprint needs to sell off its Nextel service areas that overlap with iPCS within 360 days, which marks another big win for the affiliate that's been all up in Sprint's business ever since the Sprint-Nextel merger several years ago. What's more, iPCS has more pending litigation claiming Sprint is withholding "advanced technologies" in favor of iPCS' competitors, so there's still all sorts of bad blood between these two. As for potential suitors for Nextel's obligatory spinoffs, Sprint's not talking -- yet -- but with iDEN's seeming second wind, snatching up that network might not be the worst decision a company could make.