Browse by Tags

Filed under: Sprint , Misc We told you it wasn't over , and now, that once "manageable" $73 million payment could possibly balloon to upwards of $1.2 billion. As predicted, the prior suit -- which was held in a California state court -- has led to a far reaching class-action lawsuit that could "potentially cost the company as much as $1.2 billion." The suit alleges that the $150 to $200 fees violated the Federal Communications Act and laws in every state of the country, and when summed from 1999 to 2008, they total a magical $1.2 billion. Things aren't looking great for Sprint on this one either, as lawyer Scott Bursor is running the show. Who's he? Just a guy who was involved in getting Verizon to fork over $21 million for the same thing earlier this year. [Via textually ] Sprint now facing $1.2 billion class-action suit over early termination fees originally appeared on Engadget Mobile on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Dell unfairly targeted over-40’s in recent layoffs and discriminates against women according to a class action lawsuit filed against them this week by four former employees. Those employees were HR executives who have filed a US$500 million class action lawsuit against Dell in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. They allege that Dell operates an ‘old [...]

Filed under: Messaging , Verizon Wireless We figured back in August that Verizon (and LG) would eventually be forced to pay up in order to keep visual voicemail on its handsets , and sure enough, that's exactly what has gone down with the former company. Verizon and Klausner Technologies have quickly settled outstanding patent litigation by way of Verizon entering into a patent license agreement for using visual voicemail. To date, Verizon is the 15th company to ink such an agreement, ensuring that the suits at Klausner can remain firmly parked in Grand Cayman, Aruba, Maui or any other blissful location they please for the remainder of their Earthly lives. As for LG? We'd say the outcome is all but imminent at this point. [Via phonescoop , image courtesy of MyDigitalLife ] Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Apple has asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit that iPhone 3G customers had brought against the company, saying that the customers did not ask the company to repair their iPhones or ask for a refund as part of their one-year warranty. The suit, brought by Jessica Smith from Alabama in August, said that the iPhone 3G repeatedly dropped calls and that its connection to AT&T mobility's 3G HSPA network was not reliable, and that the service she received did not match what Apple claimed it would be in its marketing campaign. She was later joined in the suit by another iPhone customer, Wilton Triggs, and the suit was seeking class-action status. "Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint conspicuously omits one critical condition precedent to all three causes of action: an allegation that they contacted Apple to seek a repair of the alleged defects or a replacement iPhone 3G under Apple's One (1) Year Limited Warranty," Apple's attorneys said. A separate lawsuit was filed against Apple in California in September, with the bulk of that complaint focused on AT&T's network, which the lawsuit complains gets bogged down due to high volumes of usage. As well, a U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District in California denied Apple's request last week to dismiss a $1.2 billion anti-trust suit, which claims that Apple violated anti-trust laws by tethering the iPhone to AT&T's network. For more: - see this article on the Alabama suit - see this article on the anti-trust suit Related Articles: iPhone killer about to launch - see pics here Apple slammed with lawsuit over iPhone 3G Apple , AT&T sued over iPhone 3G

Filed under: Misc We could start off by telling you just how much this decision will hurt Qualcomm and just how celebratory the mood must be at Broadcom, but instead, we'll key you in on this quote: "The appeals court also rejected Qualcomm's request for a new trial." At long last, we may have actually heard the end of what has seemed like a never-ending battle between the aforementioned parties. Today, a US Appeals court upheld an earlier ruling that Qualcomm had indeed infringed upon two Broadcom patents while ruling that a third patent in question was invalid. The ruling is obviously a huge win for Broadcom, who will soon be bathing in Benjamins as Qualcomm is forced to pay mandatory royalties for the chips it sells during the "sunset period" ending January 31, 2009. [Via Reuters ] Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Misc Ooh, Qualcomm you been naughty . You might remember that last year Qualcomm was banned from selling various 3G chips that infringed on Broadcom's patents, but the big Q apparently believes that being in trouble is a fake idea, because it kept right on doing it -- to the point where a judge today found the company in contempt for violating the injunction and ordered it to pay up gross profits from sales of its QChat push-to-talk tech to Broadcom. The court gave Qualcom 30 days to figure out how much it owes -- Sprint's paid over $39M to use the tech since last December, so it's not going to be peanuts. Qualcomm says it'll immediately comply, but is planning on appealing the order, so we'll how this all goes down. Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments