T-Mobile sides with Samsung in Apple patent infringement case
On the heels of Verizon coming out in support of Samsung in Apple's patent lawsuit against the South Korean electronics maker, T-Mobile has submitted a brief opposing a proposed preliminary injunction against the company's smartphones and tablets.
The wireless carrier submitted an amicus curiae, "friend of the court," brief in defense of Samsung on Wednesday, along with a request to be admitted as a third party and a motion to shorten time to ensure that the request is considered ahead of an Oct. 13 hearing on Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction, Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reports.
The filing closely resembles the arguments that Verizon Wireless made in its own filing last Friday, even noting that "to the extent applicable, T-Mobile incorporates the arguments of [Verizon's brief]." The nation's largest wireless carrier had argued in its brief that an preliminary injunction on Samsung's devices was detrimental to public interest because it could slow deployment of next-generation networks, possibly affecting "first responders and public safety officials."
Unlike Verizon, however, T-Mobile extends its public interest arguments to apply to all of Apple's asserted patents, not just the single software patent. Verizon's motion had excluded three of Apple's design patents from its brief, instead focusing on the lone software patent asserted against the devices.
T-Mobile's request to shorten time is meant to preempt an expected objection from Apple over the late filing of the motion. The iPhone maker on Tuesday opposed Verizon's request to file a brief in support of Samsung, arguing that the filing was "untimely." Mueller notes that the submission fails to mention why T-Mobile waited more than two months to file its motion, given that Apple asked for a preliminary injunction on four devices -- the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1, on July 1.
Apple does not currently offer the iPhone on the T-Mobile network. The carrier's chief marketing officer said earlier this week that "the ball is in Apple's court" for a potential partnership between the two companies. But, T-Mobile's decision to side with Samsung in its dispute with Apple does not help its cause.
T-Mobile has bet heavily on Android, with 90 percent of its smartphone sales coming from devices powered by Google's mobile operating system. The carrier could vicariously sell the iPhone if rival AT&T completes its proposed acquisition of the carrier, but the deal faces opposition from the U.S. Justice Department, which has sued to block the transaction. In the meantime, T-Mobile continues to operate independently of AT&T.
Apple and Samsung began their legal dispute in April, but the electronics maker's legal woes have ramped up in recent weeks. Samsung has agreed to continue delaying the launch of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia while awaiting a ruling from the judge presiding over the case. Justice Annabelle Bennett has said she expects to decide by next week whether to impose an injunction. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has also been blocked from being sold in Germany.
The wireless carrier submitted an amicus curiae, "friend of the court," brief in defense of Samsung on Wednesday, along with a request to be admitted as a third party and a motion to shorten time to ensure that the request is considered ahead of an Oct. 13 hearing on Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction, Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reports.
The filing closely resembles the arguments that Verizon Wireless made in its own filing last Friday, even noting that "to the extent applicable, T-Mobile incorporates the arguments of [Verizon's brief]." The nation's largest wireless carrier had argued in its brief that an preliminary injunction on Samsung's devices was detrimental to public interest because it could slow deployment of next-generation networks, possibly affecting "first responders and public safety officials."
Unlike Verizon, however, T-Mobile extends its public interest arguments to apply to all of Apple's asserted patents, not just the single software patent. Verizon's motion had excluded three of Apple's design patents from its brief, instead focusing on the lone software patent asserted against the devices.
T-Mobile's request to shorten time is meant to preempt an expected objection from Apple over the late filing of the motion. The iPhone maker on Tuesday opposed Verizon's request to file a brief in support of Samsung, arguing that the filing was "untimely." Mueller notes that the submission fails to mention why T-Mobile waited more than two months to file its motion, given that Apple asked for a preliminary injunction on four devices -- the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1, on July 1.
Apple does not currently offer the iPhone on the T-Mobile network. The carrier's chief marketing officer said earlier this week that "the ball is in Apple's court" for a potential partnership between the two companies. But, T-Mobile's decision to side with Samsung in its dispute with Apple does not help its cause.
T-Mobile has bet heavily on Android, with 90 percent of its smartphone sales coming from devices powered by Google's mobile operating system. The carrier could vicariously sell the iPhone if rival AT&T completes its proposed acquisition of the carrier, but the deal faces opposition from the U.S. Justice Department, which has sued to block the transaction. In the meantime, T-Mobile continues to operate independently of AT&T.
Apple and Samsung began their legal dispute in April, but the electronics maker's legal woes have ramped up in recent weeks. Samsung has agreed to continue delaying the launch of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia while awaiting a ruling from the judge presiding over the case. Justice Annabelle Bennett has said she expects to decide by next week whether to impose an injunction. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has also been blocked from being sold in Germany.
Comments
2) Who doesn't think this is about anything more than carriers trying to keep the control from shifting to the CE companies.
1) Since when did it become standard practice for carriers to weigh in on CE companies butting head?
2) Who doesn't think this is about anything more than carriers trying to keep the control from shifting to the CE companies.
I can almost understand T-Mobile piling on (lack of iPhone) but I do not get VZW weighing in. While this is certainly not suicide for VZW or T-Mobile, it doesn't make a lot of friends at Apple. I would not be happy with the filings if I were Apple.
I think your second point nails the reasoning behind this.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, or piss off the person holding the light at the end of the tunnel.
I can almost understand T-Mobile piling on (lack of iPhone) but I do not get VZW weighing in. While this is certainly not suicide for VZW or T-Mobile, it doesn't make a lot of friends at Apple. I would not be happy with the filings if I were Apple.
I think your second point nails the reasoning behind this.
The real issue here is simple: If this dissolves into a patent war and Samsung etc lose, there will be less actual "iPhone-like" phones on the market.
With less iPhone-like phones, the prices on the devices won't have as much pressure to drop. For the phone companies, the lower the price on the handset, the lower the "buy-in" price, and the better it works for them.
It is a similar world in the PC business currently. All the OEMs are designing essentially identical items and then trying to differentiate in very minor ways. This creates very little chance for differentiation, and thus very little chance to make much profit. This is the way Microsoft wants it. They don't want the OEMs making the money - they want Microsoft making the money.
The same thing applies here. If mobile devices become commoditized, the phone market profit share will actually lie squarely with the mobile companies. Its the way that its been before, and every cell network provider at the moment is clawing to try and get the market back to that way. They're scared.
"...preliminary injunction on Samsung's devices was detrimental to public interest because it could slow deployment of next-generation networks, possibly affecting "first responders and public safety officials.""
Barring Samsung's devices would prevent them from deploying next-gen networks? What are we now, living in Dipstickville?
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, or piss off the person holding the light at the end of the tunnel.
The funny thing is the company holding the light at the end of the tunnel isn't Apple. It's Deutsche Telekom. After all, they are official iPhone carriers in about a dozen European markets.
T-Mobile USA -- already the underperforming black sheep of the conglomerate -- risks increasing the separation between it and the corporate parent.
Barring Samsung's devices would prevent them from deploying next-gen networks? What are we now, living in Dipstickville?
Oh I love this quote!
Barring Samsung's devices would prevent them from deploying next-gen networks? What are we now, living in Dipstickville?
Their point is that there's no reason to deploy next-gen networks if they can not sell devices that utilize said networks. I do see their point, as the majority of 4g handsets are running android; they're stretching it a bit saying its because of the public interest though.
Tmobile probably would've filed regardless, but I don't think Verizon would if the next gen iPhone was LTE capable.
Barring Samsung's devices would prevent them from deploying next-gen networks? What are we now, living in Dipstickville?
it is more of a political move than a meritorious claim.
lawyers are not that dumb. they usually know whether their claims are likely to prevail or not.
when they make such frivolous claims nonetheless they are doing so not to win the case
but to receive some media attention and to express their concerns to the opposing party.
they took this motion as an opportunity to officially show their position to Apple.
With less iPhone-like phones, the prices on the devices won't have as much pressure to drop. For the phone companies, the lower the price on the handset, the lower the "buy-in" price, and the better it works for them.
I don't think that is really the issue. I think it is more about simply having devices to sell. T-mobile doesn't have the iPhone and likely never will unless they merge with ATT etc or when LTE is the only needed service. They may have thought the merge would be cake and didn't try to convince Apple to make a t-mobile 3G iPhone. By the time they found out the plan wasn't going to go as they thought it was too late for this year.
So if they lose the Samsung lineup there is a risk of folks jumping ship because there is nothing close to the iPhone for them to at least try.
1) Since when did it become standard practice for carriers to weigh in on CE companies butting head?
2) Who doesn't think this is about anything more than carriers trying to keep the control from shifting to the CE companies.
I think spam sandwich's dipstickville theory fits your first point
As to your second point, to be fair apple has been actively taking control from the carriers (thank jebus) for a while. I guess a little blow back from the dumb pipes should be expected. But yes I think your right, the carriers can see the future and it ain't great for them. Hopefully they'll be denied here.
Effin' incredible...
"...preliminary injunction on Samsung's devices was detrimental to public interest because it could slow deployment of next-generation networks, possibly affecting "first responders and public safety officials.""
Barring Samsung's devices would prevent them from deploying next-gen networks? What are we now, living in Dipstickville?
Western Wireless-> Voicestream -> T-Mobile has always been a slimy corporation. I know from the inside/out.
When it was Voicestream they swung almost entirely from Nokia's sack. Then with T-Mobile they expanded and became famous for their creative billing and lawsuits filed against them.
Like Verizon they both have a reputation for being douche bags.