A federal judge ruled Wednesday evening that Sprint Nextel Corp. and a regional cellphone company can sue AT&T Inc. over its acquisition of rival T-Mobile USA.
AT&T had asked U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle to dismiss the case because Sprint and Ridgeland, Miss.-based C Spire Wireless did not have the right to sue over the deal that would create the nation's largest wireless phone carrier.
Dallas-based AT&T already is fighting an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Obama administration that claims the AT&T-T-Mobile merger would lead to higher wireless prices, less innovation and fewer choices for consumers. AT&T says the deal will allow it to better serve customers and expand its wireless network.
But Huvelle ruled Sprint and C Spire could move forward with some of its claims, including that the deal would block their access to the most innovative handsets, which they say are becoming the primary way to attract customers. Wireless carriers compete for devices, sometimes winning exclusive deals with manufactures such as AT&T's deal to exclusively provide iPhone service from the popular smartphone's release in 2007 until early this year.
Huvelle said manufacturers want to design devices for larger carriers because they can sell the most phones. Sprint and C-Spire argue that with 129 million customers combined after the merger, AT&T and T-Mobile would control more than 40 percent of the national market and have increased power to get exclusive deals that would hurt smaller competitors' business.
Huvelle agreed with AT&T that Overland Park, Kan.-based Sprint and C Spire do not have the right to sue on many of the grounds they attempted, including their claim that the deal would lead to higher retail rates. She said that is a harm to consumers and not the companies themselves.
Wayne Watts, AT&T senior executive vice president and general counsel, said in a statement that the company was pleased that the ruling dismissed the majority of its competitors' claims.
"We believe the limited, minor claims they have left are entirely without merit," the statement said.
Sprint's vice president of litigation, Susan Haller, said in a statement that the company was pleased to have "the chance to continue fighting to preserve competition on behalf of consumers and the wireless industry."
Eric Graham, vice president strategic and government relations for C Spire Wireless, said the judge's ruling "will ensure that all parties harmed by AT&T's proposed takeover of T-Mobile will have the benefit of a fair hearing."
Wayne Watts is now ATTs golden boy, a great rebut don't ya think!
Recently I bought a Samsung printer that had a Samsung retail price on $214.00, but I got it at Staples for 100 bucks. So I investigated some more and found out that the only devices that are sold at retail (inflated x2) were wireless devices. So you have the horse behind the cart.
Oh dear, OpenSignalMaps says Lte 3% of the time! And ATT map say Good to go Lte! If interested you can get OpenSignalMaps from Anroid play.
It is ironic that both Sprint and C Spire got the phone they complained about only AT&T Mobility and Verizon having. It would have helped their case if they did not get the iPhone. They have their versions of most other phones.
I fail to see how they can sue At&t considering the purchase of T-mobiile has not been completed and as efparri pointed out, Sprint got it's own iPhone this year. Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.
If I'm annoyed and you're annoyed, does that make us a paranoid ??
Sarcasm is a fine art...
"Don't believe everything you think"
It's not a matter of if you win or lose, it's how you assign the blame
I fail to see how they can sue At&t considering the purchase of T-mobiile has not been completed and as efparri pointed out, Sprint got it's own iPhone this year. Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.
What makes you think the world revolves around the current iPhone? If you read again they are talking about future phones and exclusive deals that Sprint and C spire will not be able to get because of size. That alone puts a large disadvantage on them. That issue may not be the whole suit, I'm sure, but focus on it at will!
You cannot sue in advance for future unrealized damages unless you can prove current damages which are expected to continue in the future. It is like suing another motorist before he hits your car.
You cannot sue in advance for future unrealized damages unless you can prove current damages which are expected to continue in the future. It is like suing another motorist before he hits your car.
Already there, ATT has had exclusive deals for some time now, but if left unchecked the combined customer base of ATT and TMO will make it difficult to compete in their market. What in the world would of happened if the iPhone wasn't exclusive.
You cannot sue in advance for future unrealized damages unless you can prove current damages which are expected to continue in the future. It is like suing another motorist before he hits your car.
They can easily prove that currently (and in the past) AT&T gets (got) exclusive deals. They had exclusive rights to the iPhone for almost 4 years. And they can point to Verizon getting exclusive rights to the next Google phone from Samsung. The fact that these companies are getting exclusive deals now just means that if AT&T becomes bigger (with T-Mobile) then there is a greater chance that exclusive deals continue.
They sued AT&T and not Verizon. They should be suing the manufacturers of the phones. They are not suing AT&T because of its current size. They supposedly are suing because of the future larger size of AT&T. If General Mills makes an exclusive deal with Safeway to sell Cheerios, do you sue Safeway or General Mills?
They can easily prove that currently (and in the past) AT&T gets (got) exclusive deals. They had exclusive rights to the iPhone for almost 4 years. And they can point to Verizon getting exclusive rights to the next Google phone from Samsung. The fact that these companies are getting exclusive deals now just means that if AT&T becomes bigger (with T-Mobile) then there is a greater chance that exclusive deals continue.
By that logic, At&t could sue Sprint because Sprint has some exclusive phones that At&t does not. Pleeeaaassee!!
Why doesn't Sprint file a similar suit against Apple who made the exclusivity deal for iPhone?
This is an exercise in futility that will only benefit the corporate lawyers instead of the average consumer.
What makes you think the world revolves around the current iPhone? If you read again they are talking about future phones and exclusive deals that Sprint and C spire will not be able to get because of size. That alone puts a large disadvantage on them. That issue may not be the whole suit, I'm sure, but focus on it at will!
CA,
I wasn't the one who originally brought up the iPhone in the thread, but clearly that is a "sour grapes" issue with Sprint.
You cannot sue in advance for future unrealized damages unless you can prove current damages which are expected to continue in the future. It is like suing another motorist before he hits your car.
They're not suing for monetary damages. They initiated court proceedings to block the thing from happening; wouldn't work very well if they waited until after it happened. Personally, I feel that the grounds for the suit are perfectly reasonable, and apparently the judge does, too (for those claims he let continue.)
Lawsuits are always about money. The judge's ruling was not on the merits of the case but whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit. The plaintiffs still have to prove their case at trial.
By that logic, At&t could sue Sprint because Sprint has some exclusive phones that At&t does not. Pleeeaaassee!!
Why doesn't Sprint file a similar suit against Apple who made the exclusivity deal for iPhone?
This is an exercise in futility that will only benefit the corporate lawyers instead of the average consumer.
But Sprint's argument has a lot of sound logic behind it. If you were a phone manufacturer and were open to an exclusivity arrangement, which means your phone can only be sold by one carrier, who would you choose? A carrier with 140 million customers, or a carrier with 20 million customers?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by veriztd
Bookmarks