Verizon sides with Samsung against Apple, asks court to deny preliminary injunction

“Verizon, the largest U.S. wireless carrier, implores the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to deny Apple’s request for a US-wide preliminary injunction against four Samsung products (the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G and Droid Charge smartphones, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer), arguing that such a decision would run counter to the public interest as it ‘would hinder Verizon Wireless in developing and deploying its next generation high-speed LTE [fourth-generation] network, the job growth dependant on that network, and will undercut key public policy goals, including expansion of American’s [sic] access to broadband networks and faster communication with emergency personnel,'” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents.

“This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple’s enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market,” Mueller reports. “I’m sure that Apple will view this move as a self-serving attempt to game the system in Android’s and Samsung’s favor, as another sign of Verizon being staunchly Android-aligned in exchange for market-distorting favors from Google, and as an attack on the intellectual property-centric business model of Apple and other innovators.”

Mueller reports, “Verizon, which recently proposed that President Barack Obama should exercise his presidential veto right against possible ITC import bans against Apple’s as well as Android-based devices, filed a motion for leave (a request for permission) to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Samsung ahead of a court hearing scheduled for October 13, after which there might be a preliminary injunction against four relatively new Android-based Samsung products. An amicus curiae brief is a way for third parties with an interest in the outcome of a lawsuit to present their views to the court. The judge will now have to decide whether Verizon is admitted as an amicus curiae, which literally means ‘friend of the court.'”

Much more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Lowell, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!

40 Comments

  1. Well, at least now I can sign in to the iTunes store after waiting all morning for some reason.

    I thought I was gonna have to hire a lawyer and head down to Tyler to get in line…..

  2. Dear Mr. Cook, fire Mr. Gore from the board (because it’s time, and you need to make a strong showing against any leakage early).

    Take that message to Verizon and the industry that you’re no pushover; besides the fact that Jobs is still around.

    Finally, Apple users worldwide, just boycott EVERYTHING Samsung; the rest (lawsuits, Google/Verizon sneaky plays, etc.) will follow. Vote with your wallets.

    Apple may not win all the decency and innovation battles alone, but you can win them (and us) the war.

    1. Cook doesn’t need your advice regarding board members. Furthermore, Cook is CEO and does not have control over the Board or Directors. Jobs is Chairman of the Board. Board members are elected by the company shareholders.

      I agree that we should voted with our dollars. As a group, it is the strongest voice we have.

    2. Tim Cook can’t fire Al Gore, as much as I’d like to see him do it. Boards fire CEOs, not the other way around. To get Al Gore off the board, they will have to have major shareholders vote against him at the next election of board seats…. these things rarely seem to happen. Alternatively, Jobs may be able to convince him to “resign” to “spend more time on global warming” or whatever….

      Gore gave Apple some political leverage last decade…and Gore being on the board is just another politician on the take – “You got a nice computer company here, it would be really sad if something were to happen to it. I’ve got some friends back in washington, put me on the board and give me fat stock options and I could maybe help you out with washington.”

    3. I was wrong, Mr. Cook can’t fire Mr. Gore; not sure what I was thinking. It might be well to see Mr. Gore gone though; having said that, maybe just by staying out of the way he does provide value.

      I was also wrong about board member Andrea Jung; apparently Apple’s recent successful penetration in China (so far) underscores her value. I understand that was the justification of bringing her in at the time, and Apple is now poised to reap benefits.

      Guess, Mr. Jobs and co. knew/know what they are doing, and Mr. Cook can disregard all my silly advice henceforth. 😮 )

      1. How does having a Canadian-American, daughter of a concert pianist and MIT Professor, raised in Wellesley, MA, head of Avon Products, on the BoD of GE since 1998 and Apple since 2008 enable successful penetration of the Chinese market? Maybe just the funny sounding last name?

        Gore is on the BoD of Apple because SJ understands the value of intelligent, passionate people who are committed to ideals and ideas beyond themselves and who have the capacity to think for themselves. He’s probably not going to start listening to the Rush Limbaugh echo chamber for advice.

        1. “Maybe just the funny sounding last name?”

          No.
          Next time, when you make assumptions and start questioning others based on those assumptions, you might want to do a bit of research first on the subject. Here, let me help you get started:

          Why did Apple name Avon CEO Andrea Jung to Board of Directors?

          “Why did Apple name Avon CEO Andrea Jung to Board of Directors?

          Monday, January 7, 2008 · 4:47 pm · 42 Comments

          “Avon Products CEO Andrea Jung will become Apple’s eighth member of its board of directors, the company announced Monday,” Tom Krazit blogs for CNET.

          “She’s also fluent in Mandarin, and has helped turn Avon around in part by focusing on the growing market for consumer goods in China. That could help Apple refine its strategy for China.”

          HTH.

        2. I think I should respond to your second comment as well, though, at first, I wanted to just skip it.

          “Gore is on the BoD of Apple because SJ understands the value of intelligent, passionate people who are committed to ideals and ideas beyond themselves and who have the capacity to think for themselves. He’s probably not going to start listening to the Rush Limbaugh echo chamber for advice.”

          Mr. Gore, smart and passionate as he apparently is, shouldn’t have leaked the iPhone info before an official Apple announcement. I doubt it sends a very clear and inspiring message to the countless other Apple employed/related personnel around the globe, who are expected/required to proactively “not leak” unannounced information. When an esteemed board member casually/mistakenly leaks one out AND gets away with it, it makes future slip ups a more slippery business. Mr. Jobs had once commented precisely on that kind of slip ups as “ships leaking from the top,” when someone (at the D8 confs, I think) tried to get him to spill on upcoming product as scoops.

          You were responding to me, so I think you were referring to me when you mentioned the “Rush Limbaugh echo chamber”.

          I’m not perturbed by your opinions of me, but I thought I offered the following, should they clarify things for you in any way:

          1. I don’t listen to Mr. Limbaugh.
          2. I don’t currently subscribe to any American (or any other for that matter) political parties/ideologies.
          3. I’m not an American (if you couldn’t already guess by now.)
          4. From what little I know of Mr. Limbaugh, there are many things I don’t see eye to eye with him. However, I do highly appreciate his vocal support and positive contributions towards Apple and its community over the years.

          If you have further questions, just ask. No need to make quick assumptions, particularly when they might whisk you away from the facts.
          Thanks and cheers.

    4. boycott EVERYTHING Samsung? Dude take a chill pill…

      Just understand… The iPhone WILL BE on ALL U.S. Networks… VZ will lose its place (along with ATnT) in using the iPhone to snatch customers.

      Sprint and T-Mobile will grab their customers right back…

      In the END… Apple still wins… AND Oracle vs. Android has a much greater influence regarding what will happen to Goog/Android et al.

      This will all work in the end… AND people ARE voting with their wallets… You will never turn Apple haters into users… let them be… their loss…

      1. Why do you feel I need to take a chill pill? Was I yelling, screaming, or launching into a fist fight?

        I took a stance on ethical grounds, and have voiced my opinion, which I believe I’m entitled to. It’s really a very civil protest. No one is being forced (hence you get to vote) into anything here. I’m merely requesting the like-minded people who are just as incensed by the conglomerate that is Samsung. In a way, this is irrespective of what Apple has to say on this matter. I have my own opinions.

        You may have found a middle ground on ethics, I haven’t. I saw something blatantly wrong, and have decided to not support it. The same reason, I haven’t bought anything from MS for decades, switched my default search to Yahoo on my iDevices. I like to think, like so many others here, I lead a life mostly decent, and my sense of what is unjust and wrong, isn’t up for a compromise. I’m voting with my wallets.

        Here’s a rational pill for you.

          1. Indeed, Yahoo actually leases the search listing tech from MS. Though, Yahoo has its own search technology, it costs more to run it; so instead they’re piggybacking on MS’s. It saves them money, and I have no beef with that. Also, over the recent years, Google has made me appreciate MS a bit more than I ever deemed possible. Case in point, MSs revised table vision with Windows 8. They have actually tried to innovate instead of blatantly copycatting.

            Going back to search, on my MBP, my default search page is Startpage.com, which utlises Google engine, but doesn’t retain my IP info. I’m supporting Startpage and not Google directly. Unless/until I am made aware of any actual/perceived hypocrisy here, I’m good with this.

  3. Google out right steals and this company runs over to them and asks where is their cut. Verizon is such a dirtbag and just straight out street walker.

    Verizon, Red I’d for Blood.

  4. Verizon may need to be careful here too. If they play the card too aggressively, and in matter where they are the 3rd party, they risk to piss off too many Apple users with brains and conscience. I have a feeling, AT&T will be more than happy to welcome back legions of future iPhone users who value scruples/integrity over most everything else (convenience, service/quality, price).

    1. Unfortunately, I’m stuck with Verizon out here in the mountains. Only carrier that works reliably. I tried AT&T, but the coverage was spotty and weak, the customer service was a joke and the rates were appalling. Someday, I’d like to have them put a tower on my property. Then we’d see…

  5. Verizon, with their plan pricing structures, moves toward greater monopoly, government manipulation through lobbying (etc), and now lack of regard for the intellectual property of one company (Apple) “for the good of the people” smacks of ever increasing corporate socialism. Verizon is clearly opposed to a traditional “free market” and seeks ever greater control over our nations cellular airwaves and how they are accessed and used.

    Stepping in to a legal battle over the theft of intellectual property on the side of the alleged thief to argue “for the greater good” and as a supposed “friend of the court” would seem to be a clear attempt to manipulate and weaken our justice system. It will be very telling to watch for the outcome and see if the court allows this to go on.

    1. In the end, Verizon is just looking out for themselves. This crap happens all of the time – nothing new.

      The term “socialism” is overused and, generally, misapplied. Verizon’s actions are in no way related to socialism. from the Apple dictionary app:

      socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
      noun
      a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

      The *last thing* that Verizon wants is for the means of production, distribution, and exchange to be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

      1. In that dictionary definition, replace “community” with “corporation(s)” and you may get the gist of the meaning of “corporate socialism”. I would argue that this is exactly the model that many corporations are knowingly, or unknowingly, working toward. I agree that the corporations are most definitely NOT in favor of traditional socialism.

        1. If you substitute the words a definition, you are defining a different word. The word you now define is Fascism, where the companies own the government. The attempt to wrongly use the term socialism is an attempt to use a knee jerk response (to “socialism”) to mask the true malfeasance and corruption that corporate money has brought to American politics.

          1. Right. The essence of “socialism” (truly an over-used word that has been perverted by the rich and powerful to justify their grab-all-the-money-and run policies) is that the society takes care of the basic needs of its citizens. The term “corporate socialism” is an obscenity of the first order, describing as it does a system in which the society takes care of its corporations while hanging its citizens out to dry. This is most definitely the system we have here in the U.S.—proto-fascism at its finest. Anyone who thinks American corporations don’t own the gov’t is dreaming.

    2. Verizon is a member of an oligopoly.

      Per Wikipedia:

      “Oligopolistic competition can give rise to a wide range of different outcomes. In some situations, the firms may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) to raise prices and restrict production in much the same way as a monopoly. Where there is a formal agreement for such collusion, this is known as a cartel. A primary example of such a cartel is OPEC which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.”

  6. But hey, as every ATT bad mouther poster touted, “It’s the network!!!” So Verizon’s alignment with Samsung and Android MUST be overlooked for the right to not have a call dropped in NY city or San Francisco! Right?!

  7. Verizon is just looking out for it’s own good. The last thing Verizon wants is Android devices being banned from import. That leaves Verizon with the iPhone and two smartphones that no one buys: Blackberry and Windows Phone 7.

    Suddenly Apple has much more power and leverage over Verizon, from setting higher subsidy pricing to demanding they let features like FaceTime and other services use the cell network rather than be limited to WiFi.

    So Verizon needs multiple players who can fight between themselves rather than be able to control the carriers.

    1. To draw a completely dismissible simile here:
      it’s like a jail authority asking the crime fighting units (in tandem with the lawmakers) to help foster a “crime pays eventually” environment, so that the prisons (along with the police force, criminal courts etc.) may stay in business. Thousands of jobs saved that way, empowering the community with cheap license plates.

Leave a Reply to kingmel Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.