Stung by some pretty aggressive advertising by Verizon, AT&T has had enough and is suing the communications giant for false and misleading claims.

AT&T says the ads, which show that AT&T has poor 3G coverage compared to Verizon are causing it to lose "incalculable market share."

According to the lawsuit which AT&T filed in Atlanta federal court, a recently broadcast ad campaign shows maps with white spaces that mislead consumers into thinking AT&T has no network coverage outside of areas where it offers high-speed mobile services, known as 3G.

But AT&T argued that its customers can "fully use their wireless devices outside of a '3G' coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon's advertisements."

Verizon says the lawsuit has no merit, and Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Nancy Stark said the ads "clearly state" that voice and data services are available outside 3G areas. She said the ads were intended to tell consumers about coverage for smartphones, which are used for data services.

If you want to see the ad that sparked the lawsuit, click here.

[via Engadget]

Nokia isn't happy with the iPhone. In a suit filed today in U.S. District Court, Nokia claims that Apple has violated 10 of Nokia's wireless technology patents. The company says the patents "relate to technologies fundamental to making devices," that are compatible with the GSM, UMTS, or 3G WCDMA, and wireless LAN standards.

The claims involve cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption technologies. Nokia says Apple has been in violation of these patents since the iPhone launched in 2007.

Nokia says it has invested more than 60 million billion dollars in research and development, but says Apple has not adequately compensated the firm. Nokia is the world's largest supplier of smartphones, but most recently reported a loss of U.S. $836 million dollars, while company shipments of phones has dropped.

Apple, on the other hand, reported 4th quarter results Monday with iPhone sales up 7% from the same period a year ago.

Nokia sued Qualcomm over wireless patents and settled that dispute in July of 2008, but the terms remains confidential.

[Thanks to many of our readers for sending this in]

Apple and Psystar have been embroiled in litigation for quite a while now. At the core of the dispute: Psystar modifies Apple's operating system software so that it can run on its clone machines. It then sells its computers with Mac OS installed to, well, anybody who wants one. As you can imagine, this does not make Apple happy.

Anybody familiar with The Great Clone Crackdown of 1997 will tell you that Apple likes to keep a very tight grip on any device that presumes to run its software. Apple points out that Windows machines are a mishmash of often conflicting hardware and suffer from quirks and errors and incompatibilities that such a set up can bring.

So Apple's cadre of lawyers descended quickly on Psystar. In July of last year, the company sued Psystar for copyright and software licensing violations, quickly amending its lawsuit to additionally charge Psystar with violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

And there was much lawyering.

More than a year later, now that discovery has been completed, the two parties have each filed for summary judgment, which, in effect, asks the judge to rule in favor of the filing party because enough evidence has been shown that either makes or breaks the lawsuit.

Psystar's argument, and the one covered in its motion, somewhat relies on the "first sale doctrine" which says that any purchaser of a copyrighted product can then take that lawfully-made copy and sell it, so long as no additional copies can be made. For its part, Apple says that when one "purchases" its OS, you are only purchasing a license to use the product. Its Software Licensing Agreement (SLA) quite clearly states [PDF link to Snow Leopard SLA] that the user cannot modify the software to run on a non-Apple system.

The idea that what you are purchasing is a license to use the product is pretty commonplace among software manufacturers, because, the argument runs, you can cut any software company's profits off at the knees if every purchaser became an owner with free rein to redistribute the software. Apple states that no software company in its right mind would put the money into research and development of any software product at all if that were the end result of bringing its product to market. Groklaw suggests this could have ramifications for FOSS and and the GPL.

Across the pond in the UK, in what may be a bit of a legal "lost in translation," an 11-year-old girl was using her iPod when, according to her, there was a hissing noise and an ominous pop. It rapidly heated, and then allegedly jumped 10 feet into the air. She was left with a melted mass of unplayable music. Needless to say, not usual iPod behavior. (To be fair, you might not be surprised at spontaneous suicidal combustion after asking it to play anything by, say, Paris Hilton, though there's no evidence the girl committed that particular crime against nature.)

She and her father contacted Apple, seeking a refund for the presumably out-of-warranty iPod. Apple apparently agreed to return the purchase price of the iPod, and sent a letter to the family offering the refund, denying overall liability with regard to the incident, and included a standard confidentiality clause in it.

This is where things went a bit off the rails.

The little girl's father went ballistic, refused to sign, and soon enough, there was press coverage. The Times UK covered the incident, complete with photograph of the girl holding her toasted iPod, accusing Apple of slapping the girl with a "gagging order" and attempting to "silence" them, mafia-style. Whoa, there, Times.

1) This is no gagging order. As nice and evil and meaty as such an accusation sounds, a gagging order comes from a court and no court is involved here. It implies that Apple has gone after this family legally, and that there's been a hearing and a decision and a court order. Quite the opposite. This is just a regular, ho-hum contract between two parties, describing the things they want out of each other.

While the family may be shocked they got a letter, from a legal perspective they should be shocked if they didn't get one. Apple doesn't feel like they've done anything wrong and isn't going to start admitting its products are combustion risks by returning money out of warranty, which is exactly what it would do it if gave money to these people without some sort of settlement agreement.

2) A confidentiality agreement is standard operating procedure. Sure, a letter filled with legalese is a little heavy-handed, but hey, the iPod was out of warranty and when a company agrees to give you money it doesn't feel it owes you, especially in a situation such as this one, it can very well request confidentiality you keep your trap shut about it going forward. It's standard practice even when the company thinks it probably does owe you money. No courts are involved, and litigation is spared where the parties would fight over whether or not the money is owed. And when a confidentiality agreement is sought, it's also pretty standard to remind the parties the possible consequences of breaching the agreement.

Remember: no court is involved here and Apple and this family can reach whatever agreement they want. If the family wants an admission of liability from Apple, they remain absolutely free to pursue a lawsuit in which it will be determined whether or not Apple is at fault. And now, of course, having disclosed all the contents of the letter, Apple I'm sure has rescinded whatever refund it offered.

The UK Times has vastly overstated the standard form letter that Apple sent to them when they sought an out-of-warranty refund. I suspect, however, that Apple could have averted this public relations issue had it said, "look, we're happy to give you your money back. We have no idea why that iPod went kablooey. It could be any number of reasons, including many that don't involve us at all. So if you want us to give your money back, we will, but you have to agree not to discuss it. Why? Because that way people won't think we make defective and dangerous products when it's not at all clear that we do, and giving you your money back is good business, not an admission of liability." And then, when a legal-sounding letter shows up in the mail, nobody is shocked.

Just when you think you've heard everything, along comes an Apple lawsuit that simply defies reality.

Beverly Hills, CA resident Gregory McKenna has filed a 124-page complaint in a U.S. District Court in Missouri against Apple and a group of other defendants, including the F.B.I., the St. Louis County Police Department, and an auto mechanic. Why? Well, McKenna alleges that Apple conspired with the Italian Mafia to affix special receivers to an iPod shuffle he purchased on eBay and an iPod mini purchased in an Apple Store. These receivers were allegedly used by the Mafia to transmit threatening messages to the iPods.

Okaayyyyy. So, what were these messages? Well, first there was the time in 2008 where recordings of Mafia members saying "I'm going to kill him" were played in unison with a song on McKenna's iPod mini. The most serious message was apparently transmitted not only to his iPods, but also to an iBook G4, a PowerBook G4, and three vehicles including his mother's Honda Accord.

The "message" consisted of the word "herpes" being inserted into the song "Still Tippin'" by hip-hop/rap artist Mike Jones. Mr. McKenna alleges that this was done "to humiliate, degrade, and cause emotional distress" to him. While apparently the Mafia was using the messages to coerce McKenna into doing fashion modeling for them in New York City (I am not making this up), I'd speculate that it's probably Apple's way to get him to purchase newer equipment.

[via AppleInsider]

In the fight for the right to party sell unauthorized Mac clones, there may be a victor declared sooner rather than later -- if not legally, then fiscally. Psystar, which has been playing with fire for quite some time, recently hit a snag in its battle with Apple. The Mac Observer is reporting that Psystar has filed for bankruptcy in Florida on Thursday thereby slowing Apple's case against the Mac clone vendor.

As TMO points out, this action seems to indicate that the financial supporters of Psystar are seeing the writing on the wall and believe Apple will likely be the victor in the legal battle for distribution rights of OS X-running Macintosh clones.

One outcome of Psystar's decision to file Chapter 11 is that its equity creditors will be revealed, finally pulling the curtains off of the secret of who has the (possibly) deep pockets in Psystar's legal battle. Another outcome is that Apple's case against Psystar will be temporarily delayed as the bankruptcy proceedings require all other legal action involving Psystar to be put on hold.

Currently Psystar is still selling its 'wares online, however, once the Federal judge presiding over the bankruptcy filing lifts the stay of legal actions, it is likely that Psystar will fold under the financial pressure. Psystar's chutzpah notwithstanding, the bankruptcy hearings are set to begin on June 5; stay tuned folks, this is still going to be messy.

[via Twitter, a tip of the hat to @PaulKent!]

French jeweler / watchmaker Cartier provided some unexpected humor over the long Memorial Day weekend after the company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Apple regarding two iPhone apps. The lawsuit and the quick response by Apple were covered by the Wall Street Journal in several posts and noted briefly in our weekend news roundup.

A small iPhone development shop, Digitopolis Game Studio, had created two apps -- Fake Watch and Fake Watch Gold Edition -- that showed the time on a choice of high-end timepieces. Among the "watches" were images of Cartier's luxury "Tank" watch. Although the free Fake Watch app had first appeared in January of 2009, Cartier apparently didn't notice until Friday, when lawyers representing the company filed suit against Apple for allowing the apps to be sold in the App Store.

Apple's response was quick; they pulled the apps from the U.S. App Store almost immediately. Cartier responded late Friday by withdrawing their lawsuit, stating that their "concerns had been addressed".

What do you think? Did Cartier have a valid concern that their trademark was being infringed upon or do you think they ought to spend more time chasing down the guys selling Cartier knockoffs in Times Square? Leave your comments below.

It was just a few days ago we were talking about hacked MagSafe connectors, and now a lawsuit seeking class action status claims the innovative connectors are a fire hazard and a risk to life, limb, and property.

As an example, here's a link to some Flickr images of what is claimed is a melted MagSafe connector.

The complaint, filed last week in San Jose, California says that eventually the cord will fray from heat or wear, with a resulting danger of fire and injury. The suit, filed by plaintiffs Tim Broad, Naotaka Kitagawa and Jesse Reisman says Apple is aware of the problem and has done nothing about it.

The suit also claims when people demonstrate the problem to Apple, the company suggests they buy another $80.00US cable. Actually, we reported in August that Apple was replacing damaged or worn cables if they were not subject to abuse.

Apple has not commented on the lawsuit. It will be interesting to watch this one wind through the courts.

The power connector was introduced at Macworld in January, 2006. It has not always received positive reviews, even at the Apple Store.

We were just fine with letting this story dissipate right into the air like so many bad smells, as it's not exactly the most impressive thing to ever happen in the App Store. But in the interests of completionism, we'll bring it to you anyway.

First, there were two apps that made fart noises, called Pull My Finger and iFart. Then, there was allegedly some inappropriate twittering (and shady iPhone reviewing -- we seriously doubt that tons of people want to give five stars to an app about MC Hammer), $50,000 of damages were requested, a "Social Media Expert" (read: "tool") got angry, and eventually a lawsuit was filed, and now every blog and website everywhere is posting that two apps about flatulence are suing each other.

Like we said, not the story out of the App Store that we're most proud to report. But Apple did get mixed up in all of this early on -- Gizmodo reports that the Mothership was approached for a solution, and that it was decided to let the devs fight it out. Maybe if Apple had said early on that applications on the App Store had to do a little more than make fart noises (or that there was already enough farting going on in the store -- what do those other 29 apps have to do with any of this?), the iPhone wouldn't now be known as the premiere device for farting.

But we suppose there's money to be had -- someone out there is buying either or both of these idiotic apps, and as a result, both of these guys are willing to go to court over software that reproduces the sound of passing gas in the hopes of getting even more money, despite the fact that you can simulate the same effect with the human armpit. Can we cut the lawsuits and get to producing some actual software for the platform, please?

Previously in the Apple-Psystar legal battle, the clone maker amended its countersuit to charge that Apple was unfairly leveraging its copyright by binding Mac OS X to Mac hardware.

On Friday, the federal judge assigned to the case ruled that the amendment will be heard by the court, a small victory for Psystar. It's something of a reversal for the company, since they had federal antitrust allegations thrown out in November. Similarly, Psystar's assertion that Apple is in violation of California's antitrust laws was thrown out Friday as well.

Judge William Alsup said, "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop." This isn't to say that the judge necessarily agrees with Psystar's point, but just that it's legally reasonable enough to be argued in court.

Apple has also not yet revealed its 10 "John Doe" defendants: alleged conspirators who worked on Psystar's technique for loading Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.

The case will decide whether or not Apple can disallow other hardware makers -- including Psystar -- from including Mac OS X on computers shipped to end users. Last week, a company in Germany claimed that Mac OS X's End User License Agreement didn't apply to them, and is selling Mac clones to customers.

The case is scheduled to go to trial on November 9.

[Via Macworld.]

A Northern California man is not happy with his iPhone. AppleInsider reports that Jason Medway thinks his iPhone performs poorly, and believes Apple advertising is tricking people into purchases the device can't live up to.

Medway, through his attorney, is seeking US $5 million dollars in damages. The suit argues that, because of Apple's misrepresentations, "thousands of customers who purchased Apple's iPhone 3G and accompanying 3G service from AT&T have experienced broken promises regarding the phone's transmission speeds."

This is not the first lawsuit over the 3G iPhone. The legal fireworks began last August with a suit claiming the iPhone performance was not up to par. That suit, was followed by other legal claims complaining about performance, download speeds, and badly written programs available at the App Store.

Last year, Wired magazine commissioned an independent study that found most of the speed related problems on the iPhone had to do with networks, and not the iPhone hardware.

Apple has not commented on any of these lawsuits, other than in a brief legal response in a similar lawsuit in September. Apple seemed to imply that people should not believe everything they hear or see in ads. Apple's attorneys said "Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact."

The first generation of iPod nano models may have been small and sleek, but they also apparently had an image problem -- mainly, that it rapidly grew difficult to see the screen after the nicks and scratches began to accumulate on the face of the player. As far back as 2005, users expressed their displeasure over the nano's likelihood for damage, including cracks in the screen in some cases.

Thanks to a now-settled class action lawsuit, nano owners who experienced the scratchies can apply for a refund of $15 (if the iPod shipped with a slip case, as later ones did) or $25 (for no-case shipments). You can get all the details from the settlement website. Refunds may take up to a year (!) to arrive.

[via AppleInsider]

In what might be the most outlandish claim yet to surface in the case, Psystar now claims that Apple never registered Mac OS X with the U.S. Copyright Office, rendering its copyright invalid, according to InformationWeek. Note that registration isn't a condition of protection, but it is a condition of certain types of infringement actions and damages.

Psystar argues, thus, that since Apple doesn't own the copyright, there's no way for Apple to enforce its claims that Psystar violated its copyright. The claim was filed in U.S. District Court last week.

Although copyright registration number TX0005401457 describes a "computer program" named Mac OS X, it's unclear how Psystar argues this isn't the copyright Apple owns on its operating system. Moreover, contrary to what Psystar appears to argue, copyright is secured automatically in the United States when the work is created, and registration is not a condition of copyright protection (although it can help in fighting infringement). Our Engadget colleague Nilay Patel sums up this latest Psystar legal stratagem as "desperate." Plus, you can file suit while registration is pending, so even if there was some technical defect in the Mac OS X registration, Apple could fix it while pursuing its lawsuit.

If this long shot claim were true, it could undermine Apple's ability to restrict third parties from selling generic clones that run Mac OS X. The back-and-forth arguments are part of a lawsuit Apple originally brought against Psystar for selling Mac OS X with its clones, allegedly in violation of Apple's license agreement. According to InformationWeek, Apple now suspects that a larger company interested in selling Mac OS X-compatible computers is bankrolling Psystar's legal battle.

[Via Engadget.]

You have to admire Psystar's tenacity. Since Judge William Alsup's decision to disallow federal antitrust claims against Apple in Psystar's countersuit, Psystar is amending its countersuit, alleging the misuse of copyright based on different antitrust claims.

It boggles the mind.

Apple is already suing Psystar, of course, claiming that they are violating Mac OS X's End User License Agreement (EULA). Psystar, in its new set of counterclaims, says that Apple is improperly extending the scope of copyright law to include its argument that Psystar broke the EULA.

Psystar claims that -- while admitting that it can't make arguments based on federal antitrust law -- Apple has "leveraged" the power granted them by the Copyright Act and extended it to lock in users post-sale. This, Psystar says, is unlawfully monopolistic, and makes Apple's copyrights unenforceable.

Psystar is also seeking to prove that Apple's behavior is illegal under California's unfair competition statute.

The judge will decide in January if the new claims can be argued in court.

[Via Ars Technica.]

In yet another new facet to this already-draining legal battle surrounding Psystar's sales of non-Apple hardware that runs Mac OS X, Apple has amended its original suit after it discovered "additional information," according to Computerworld.

Apple now claims Psystar circumvented Apple's copyright protection code, in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple said in its original filing that Psystar was in violation of the Mac OS X End-User License Agreement, but tacked on this additional charge last week.

The amendment also names 10 "John Does" -- persons who were not part of the Psystar company, but broke the copyright protection scheme. Apple doesn't know who they are yet, but plans to name names when its lawyers find out who they are.

In other Apple legal news, Apple won a trademark infringement case in China against New Apple Concept Digital Technology Co., Ltd., based in Shenzen. Judges decided that the Chinese company had a logo too similar to Apple's. New Ap -- aw, eff it -- NACDTCL was ordered to pay 400,000 yuan (≈ US$58,000) to Apple, Inc.

[Via Cult of Mac.]