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]

Starting in November, use of your cellphone's GPS navigation capabilities will be illegal for drivers on New Zealand roadways while dedicated SatNav devices without voice capability are still ok. In fact, use of your modern cellphone as an in-vehicle MP3 player, compass, etc. will all be illegal under Road User Amendment Rule 2009. Here's how it reads currently:

"A driver must not, while driving a vehicle, create, send, or read a text message on a mobile phone or make, receive, or terminate a telephone call on a mobile phone or use a mobile phone in any other way."

A law this broad would also make your car's integrated cellphone entertainment system illegal. There are exceptions of course, one of which allows drivers to use a mobile phone to make, receive, or terminate a telephone call if the phone is mounted in the vehicle and the driver "manipulates the phone infrequently and briefly," even though studies have already concluded that hands-free solutions are still distracting and thus, dangerous. Yeah, the whole thing sounds arbitrary, over-reaching, and completely unenforceable to us as well.

Update: Put down the pitchforks and torches, it looks like the law is already en route for amendment to allow cellphone "satellite navigation or music functions."

[Via Stuff, image courtesy of joannapapa5100]

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]

Based on what we're hearing, a slate of soon-to-be-proposed FCC rules may stop the likes of Comcast from discriminating against P2P applications on their networks, and AT&T sure will have a tougher time justifying why it won't let the iPhone's version of SlingPlayer run on 3G while giving WinMo and BlackBerry users all the bandwidth they can handle. Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the entity, is slated to discuss the new rules on Monday, though he isn't expected to dig too deep into the minutiae. Essentially, the guidelines will "prevent wireless companies from blocking internet applications and prevent them from discriminating (or acting as gatekeepers) [against] web content and services." We know what you're thinking: "Huzzah!" And in general, that's probably the right reaction to have as a consumer, but one has to wonder how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

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?

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]

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.

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

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)

You just thought that whole AT&T-Dobson Communications tie up was completely over. Turns out, AT&T is now being asked to pay $2 million as part of a civil settlement for violating a pair of court orders related to the acquisition. According to a petition filed by the Department of Justice, the carrier failed to fulfill its obligations when divesting mobile wireless businesses in three rural service areas (two in Kentucky and one in Oklahoma). In essence, AT&T personnel reportedly obtained "unauthorized access to the divested businesses' competitively sensitive customer information, and in some situations used it to solicit and win away the divested businesses' customers," and it doesn't take a lawyer to understand how sketch that is. Tsk, tsk, AT&T.

[Via RCRWireless]

After 13 months into a five-year exclusivity deal in France, the French competition agency has ruled the Apple and Orange (the mobile subsidiary of France Telecom) cartel illegal. Something that could have a knock-on effect throughout Europe. The agency criticized the Orange/Apple pact for having "grave and immediate" effect on the overall French mobile marketplace and thus, the French consumer, by introducing "a new flavor of rigidity in a sector that already lacks competition." The injunction, while temporary, is enough to allow other French carriers to distribute the iPhone 3G in time for the holidays. Shrug.

Brutal honesty here: on election day this past November, the entire Engadget staff (well, those of us with US passports) collectively agreed that casting our vote via SMS or some other incredibly simple method would be infinitely more awesome than trudging out in the streets and waiting in hour-long lines. Clearly, some higher-ups in Estonia are on board with that concept, as its Parliament has approved a law that will likely make it the first nation on Planet Earth to give citizens the right to vote by phone in something that matters (American Idol notwithstanding). 'Course, those who choose to take advantage must first obtain a free authorization chip for their handset, which sort of kills the whole "not having to leave your house" aspect of all this. Ah well, at least we're moving in the right direction.