The suit bears a lot of the stamps of hollow patent trollery, from the outside-the-industry plaintiff company to the oddly late filing. (The iPhone has been out for a couple years now, and it's had a camera the whole time.) But these guys aren't bullshitting: they have a history of winning similar suits against major camera maufacturers, including Sony, which paid them $25m in 2001, and Canon, which paid them $34m in damages in 2003. They've entered into licensing agreements with "many" of the companies they've sued, which include the likes of Samsung, Nokia and Nikon. So, what's their secret? Patents like this:
Digital cameras, have you ever heard of them?

To have a patent as fundamental as this—among others, including a patent on digital shutter buttons, and one for storage and display methods for digital images—awarded in the early 90s and upheld by the courts is nothing to scoff at. When this thing finally kicks off—the scheduling conference isn't until January, so it'll probably be a few months before we see fireworks—it'll be one to watch, since companies who land in court with Apple have a tendency to—one sec—DIE HORRIBLY. There. [LoopinSight, specific patent list here]

Here's what Texas-based law firm AbingtonIP says to justify their new suit:

Although modification of Xbox consoles is arguably against the terms of use for Xbox/Xbox Live, Microsoft 'conveniently' timed the Xbox console ban to coincide with the release of the new Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 game and less than two months after the release of the very popular Halo 3: ODST game.

I'm not sure that modding consoles is "arguably" against the terms of use; it is against the terms of use. And why wouldn't they want to keep people from pirating their biggest game of the year?

Certainly, anyone who is banned who hasn't modded their console has a legitimate bone to pick with Microsoft, and there's no defending their heavy-handed banning tactics and their collateral damage. But to suggest they're intentionally banning legit accounts in order to get people to sign up again, well, that's pretty stupid. [TG Daily via Engadget]

When your lawsuits sound like press releases, it's because they probably are (not that we care, the whole case is pretty entertaining). Check out this opening statement from Verizon:

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.

YA BURNT, AT&T! Verizon goes on to accuse AT&T of failing to adequately expand its 3G coverage to match demand for its smartphones, which is sort of a hard point for AT&T to argue. Verizon claims that its advertisements are "literally true" (instead of philosophically true? Metaphorically true? True in the sense in which it is used in animal husbandry, as in purebred? What?) and not misleading, and that AT&T has failed to provide customers with an accurate map of its coverage. It's pretty great, really—if you've ever wished the American legal system was more like it is on Law and Order, this whole statement is a gift. [Engadget]

It's a tale of quite the nutter and I can barely keep the facts straight. Franz A. Wakefield, the injured party, wants to head into the courthouse and face Apple, Inc. and Sarah Jessica Parker, who will certainly be shaking in fear based on the lawsuit:

The suit claims that Wakefield [...] developed a friendship with Parker and "made a trade secret deal" with her to commercialize the iPod classic, nano, mini, shuffle, video, touch and photo, as well as iTunes and the iPhone. The supposed agreement would have granted Parker 2 percent of gross revenues from the products. Wakefield said he asked the FBI to watch over him to ensure the security of his inventions and deal with Parker.

Apparently sexy Sarah must've been talked into cutting freaky Frank out of the deal entirely and told suave Steve all about what would later become Apple's products.

Frank's pretty forgiving though, he even wrote Steve a sweet note:

This letter is to serve as a DEMAND for payment. Otherwise I will seek legal recourse for the immediate cease and desist from the manufacture, marketing, and sale of all the iPOD, iTunes, and Iphone lines; along with pursuing damages from the products sold to date, unjust enrichment caused by the theft, enforcement of the agreed 2% gross revenues on all sales, and any other applicable damages or compensation.

Such a nice guy. I'm sure he'll win. [Apple Insider]

Photo by Celebrity Pictures

Channels: COR, DMDR, LD, and NR Internal
Roles: Reps & Above
Markets: All
Contact: Your Manager

AT&T filed a lawsuit on November 4, 2009 against Verizon's "There's a Map for That" advertising campaign. Independent research shows that the maps in the advertisements mislead consumers into believing that we do not offer any wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T's 2.5G EDGE network covers 1.75 million square miles of the United States, reaching some 296 million people, roughly the same number reached by Verizon's network. This network supports popular services like e-mail, surfing the Web, texting, and voice calling, including the activities shown in the Verizon TV advertisements. In addition, our 3G service, the nation's fastest, is available in more than 9,400 cities and towns.

We filed the lawsuit in Federal District Court in Atlanta and asked that Verizon be prohibited from misleading consumers regarding the scope of our wireless network.

How should I respond to customers who ask about the lawsuit?

While we cannot speculate on the complaint filed, it is a great opportunity to remind customers of AT&T's many advantages that over 81 million customers enjoy, including:

* Best Network
* The best coverage worldwide (More Bars in More PlacesTM).
* The nation's fastest 3G network and the only national 3G carrier providing simultaneous voice and data usage.
* The most devices that work in the most places including Japan and South Korea (3G 2100 MHz device required).
* The nation's largest wireless and wireline broadband provider.
* The nation's largest company-owned and operated WiFi network with more than 20,000 hotspots, including Starbucks, McDonald's and Barnes and Noble, as well as access to over 120,000 hotspots around the world.
* The leading provider of local and long distance voice services.

Greatest Value – The fairest value with Rollover® allowing customers to keep their unused minutes month to month.
Best Products - The most innovative exclusive devices such as the iPhoneTM 3GS.
Most Convenient Services
* The most customer friendly free self-service tools with *Services for checking usage, paying bills, and adding features.
* The most convenient and cost-effective way for customers to manage their accounts with Combined Billing for wireless and wireline products.
* Industry leading 30-day satisfaction guarantee.

As always, if you have an inquiry from the media, please refer them to your local media relations team member.

I guess that if you've made a mockery of the court system with a ridiculous lawsuit, then you might as well use the attention for a bit of spin. [Mobile Crunch]

From the looks of it, this case will mirror the European Commission's case almost exactly:

"Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market," Mr. Cuomo said in a statement. "Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices."

The AG even echoes some of the same cases used in the EC's investigation, like the time Intel allegedly paid $130 million to keep IBM from selling AMD-based servers, which IBM execs considered as much a business deal as a way to avoid incurring the "wrath of Intel." I too avoid the wrath of Intel, by using AMD chips. Bam! Also: no. But still, dick move!

Cuomo is working with the same body of evidence that the European Commission was, and probably quite a bit more—the FTC's been breathing down their necks for over a year now—so I'd expect this to get pretty uncomfortable for Intel. And by uncomfortable, of course, I mean very, very expensive. [NYT]

Now, the "There's a Map for That" ad focuses on 3G alone, and the discussion is about 3G services, including video. But the charge AT&T makes is that people who watch the ad are being deliberately led to thinking that in the white spaces, there's no AT&T phone service at all. Here's the 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.

The thing is, this is somewhat tricky to prove, but it sounds wrong. There are areas of Verizon voice coverage that are not marked as red in the map in the commercial, if my squint-eye human-instrument comparison test is accurate. Try it for yourself. Does the map up top better resemble the one in blue and yellow (but not green), which shows broadband, aka 3G? Or the one in red, which shows voice and messaging?

For reference, here's AT&T's map—note, only the very darkest shade of blue represents 3G coverage:

The ad may contain jargon that might confuse middle America—I will admit that—but to any trained ear, it's pretty clearly about 3G. As far as this maps claim, though, that seems dubious. The maps that Verizon chose do seem to represent the same thing—3G coverage only. Yes, AT&T lawyers, if I'm right about this, it means that had Verizon cheated, their map would have been even redder than the one in the ad. So what's say we spend more of that iPhone subscription money on fixing the network (near my house, please!) and less money on frivolous lawsuits.

[AT&T's Motion for the Restraining Order of Verizon WARNING: PDF]

Interestingly, some ringtone services actually did pay performance royalties at one point. US District Court Judge Denise Cote ruled against the ASCAP, saying that "when a ringtone plays on a cellular telephone, even when that occurs in public, the user is exempt from copyright liability, and [the cellular carrier] is not liable either secondarily or directly."

I'm sure the music industry will find some other reason to sue somebody else next week, don't worry. [EFF via Ars]

Exhibit A, Woolworths newly redesigned logo, is on the left. Apple's iconic apple logo is on the right. Not that similar at all, but the real issue, at least with Apple, is probably that Woolworths might expand its retail business into electronics and somehow threaten that lucrative iPod business.

"While we can't rule [computers, musical players, or other devices] out, we haven't got any plans at the moment," said a Woolworths spokesman in a statement to AppleInsider.

To Apple's credit, they've moved up from suing school systems to supermarket megachains. Bigger fish, and all that. [AppleInsider]

Kyle Irving of Minneapolis was told he would have MMS when he purchased his iPhone in late June, yet it took another two months to arrive, which surely is a crime heinous enough to warrant yet another go-nowhere class-action lawsuit. The Minnesota suit will be grouped with similar suits from other states, though it's not clear exactly how much money in damages is being sought.

Not to make light of AT&T's inability to get MMS, a long-established and fairly basic feature, onto its top-selling phone, but suing for having to go two months without MMS is awfully silly. [Twin Cities, thanks Ponies!]

See, Google's cease-and-desist specifically states that Cyanogen should stop passing around Google's closed-source apps like Google Maps, Google Talk and Gmail, because those are only supposed to be used on Google Experience Android devices like the G1 and MyTouch 3G. That makes sense, except for one thing: Cyanogen only works on the exact devices those closed-source apps were designed for, like, well, the G1 and MyTouch 3G. So what's the point of trying to stop Cyanogen?

Engadget suggests that maybe Google just wants to discourage rooting of their devices in general, which seems awfully contrary to the Android open-source philosophy. Truth is, we have no idea why Google would want to stop a thriving and well-received modder, but Cyanogen says he's trying to open up some communication with the big G, so hopefully we'll get an explanation soon. [Android and Me via Engadget]

Apparently Microsoft's legal team's first battle is to uncover exactly who is behind some of those horrid ads by going through the court system. According to Microsoft on the Issues:

The lawsuits allege that individuals using the business names "Soft Solutions," "Direct Ad," "qiweroqw.com," "ITmeter INC." and "ote2008.info" used malvertisements to distribute malicious software or present deceptive websites that peddled scareware to unsuspecting Internet users. Although we don't yet know the names of the specific individuals behind these acts, we are filing these cases to help uncover the people responsible and prevent them from continuing their exploits.

Kudos to Microsoft for doing something to help all users. [Microsoft on the Issues via New York Times]

It was decided that Microsoft's "Hey! We'll just leave all browsers out completely!" would result in headaches for some consumers who would struggle to download any browser without being able to use Internet Explorer to do so. The new approach is to sell Windows PCs with Internet Explorer as the default browser, but to present users with a "ballot screen" which allows them to select and "easily install competing browsers from the Web." That's not all though:

In addition, (computer makers) would be able to install competing Web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish. The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice.

There's a catch of sorts in that there aren't any specifics on how competing browsers will be selected for the "ballot", so the jury's still out on just how accommodating Microsoft is really being. [CNET]

On Saturdays, Dr. Dena Coleman and her husband Gordon claim they are imprisoned in their condo because the landlord went and installed a motion-sensing security light to save energy and money. As Orthodox Jews, they say triggering the light violates a Sabbath rule, so they sued. Which rule? The Promethean one:

[The couple] claim they cannot leave their holiday flat on the Sabbath because when they do they automatically trigger the light in the communal hallway - contravening a religious ban on turning on electrical items from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday because it constitutes 'creating fire'. They say their human rights are being breached and are now suing the flats' management company - their neighbours - for failing to accommodate their religion.

Of the 35 other owners in the complex, not a single one of them supports the Colemans' lawsuit or their suggested fix, which entails forcing the management company to install a custom override switch. Oh, and management and the other tenants must pay back all the legal costs too.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that this is just the couple's holiday flat.

The case is scheduled for later this year. May the management install even more motion-sensing lights in that span.

Editor's Note: The original headline for this post was insensitive, and I'm now writing, individually, to those readers who contacted me this weekend expressing their disgust.

I also regret that my personal feelings on organized religion influenced my writing to the point that the article ended up lacking core tenets of Gizmodo: Mainly, gadgets, technology, relevance and intelligence.

What started in the lead as a criticism of lawsuits and one couple''s attempt to push a belief on 35 other families was soured by the remainder of the post, and I appreciate the readership pointing this out over the weekend. In that short span of time I've learned a lot about insensitivity, tact and timing. Most importantly, however, I am reminded that while Gizmodo readers come to the site for many reasons, none of them are to hear me spout off ill-informed BS about religion. For that I apologize. - J.L.

[Daily Mail - Thanks, Sctoland]

Matt Geise, the name behind the case, went out of his way to buy Amazon's $30 protective cover for his wife's Kindle 2. Over time, the points where the cover attaches to the device with metal clips began cracking. As the cracks got more severe, so did the Kindle's symptoms. Eventually, it totally croaked, as you can see above.

Geise went to Amazon, who told him to shell out $200 for repairs—less than the cost of a new or used Kindle, but not by much. So, as you do nowadays, he turned to the internet, where he found people with similar stories. Then, as you also apparently do nowadays, he parlayed it into a $5m class action lawsuit.

Fair enough, though I imagine Geise and Co. could have a tough time proving this is a design defect, and not just a symptom of rough treatment. Still, the Kindle's already got a somewhat flimsy reputation for, um, flimsiness, and this news doesn't help. Flexible displays can't come soon enough. [Seattle Times via Fast Company]

Roy, a New Hampshire resident, actually thought the letters she received from UMG's lawyers were either a joke or a scam and didn't respond for several months. Her reaction is pretty understandable; the RIAA simply directed her to a site where she could pay her "debt" with a credit card (which certainly seems like a scam) and, again, Roy did not own a damn computer.

UMG had mistakenly sued her due to the vast deficiencies in MediaSentry, the anti-piracy software the RIAA uses to track down pirates. MediaSentry incorrectly pinpoints IP addresses with not uncommon frequency, and this is obviously one such case. Roy mounted a case and UMG was forced to settle out of court, for fear that any decision at all would result in a precedent that could mean future suits could be thrown out as well. Unfortunately, the settlement does not include UMG paying Roy to apologize for being such a-holes about the whole thing, and neither side will receive any money. [Recording Industry vs. The People via Electronista]