AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile Hit With Dumbest Antitrust Lawsuit Ever

from the please dept

Fri, Apr 1st 2011 3:26pm — Mike Masnick

We just wrote about how Max Davis, who's trying to create a silly and totally pointless compulsory licensing system for MMS content was more or less laughed out of court in the lawsuit he filed against the mobile operators, claiming that they were running illegal P2P file sharing programs in the form of their MMS capabilities. It apparently took him all of a few days to come up with a new, perhaps even more ridiculous strategy: he's suing AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and TracFone for supposed antitrust violations over the same basic issues. Once again, it seems clear that this is an incredibly weak (and almost certainly unproductive) attempt at getting these companies to agree to his pointless licensing scheme.

So how are these mobile operators guilty of antitrust violations? According to Davis:

Defendants purposely conspired via collusion to install themselves as the new primary gate keepers and sole beneficiaries of multimedia content sharing through their new MMS technologies.

Except, of course, that's ridiculous. These companies did agree to set up MMS systems, but that's because they're the mobile operators who run the mobile networks. That's not collusion. And it's not antitrust. The filing gets more ridiculous as it goes on. He claims that these operators do not qualify as DMCA service providers, contrary to the pretty clear language of the law and plenty of case law. The whole thing seems frivolous, and it seems likely that this lawsuit will reach a similar conclusion to the previous one.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: antitrust, mms
Companies: at&t, sprint, t-mobile, tracfone, verizon

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:40pm

I agree it's non-sense, but I disagree with you.

These companies did agree to set up MMS systems, but that's because they're the mobile operators who run the mobile networks. That's not collusion. And it's not antitrust.

That makes 0 sense whatsoever. M$ were the "operators" of Windows, and still were guilty of Anti-trust. Being the operator makes you in no way exempt from it, which is what the sentence clearly assumes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:49pm
  
  Re:
  Clear inability to comprehend language.
  
  You get an F
  
  Also, Microshaft was found guilty of antitrust because they were engaging in such activities.
  
  Max Davis, on the other hand, is apparently a nutjob bent on making money off of somebody else's invention.
  
  Good luck to him, he's 3 ignorant judges and 15 years in lawsuits away from winning.
  
  Even if he wins, the MMS will be obsolete and the originally demanded compensations will be the equivalent of $50 thanks to inflation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And you sir, are an ass, with a God complex. You try (and fail) to be superior to others without as much as a simple valid explanation. -100 for you and your complex. That's -200 total.
    
    No one mentioned Davis in the above comment, only you did. It was only meant to show how that phrase is misleading, and you walked right into it, with your complex.
    
    Nice to see more trolls.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Quibble your grade all you like, but you'll have to improve your ability to spin subtle logical fallacies in a convincing manner if you want a better day.
      
      In your case however, I would suggest remedial education.
      
      Remember, bananas and battleships are different objects.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trolls FTW!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nice to see more trolls.
      
      Finally, a troll that calls themselves out for what they are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No one mentioned Davis
      
      I think if you check, you'll see that Mike mentioned Davis. In the article on which you commented.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 4:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Comment. COMMENT. Sheesh. Fanboys can't read, put words in other people's sentences and call them trolls. Wow.
        
        Your fanboy community gets nicer and nicer every day Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 4:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one mentioned Davis in the above comment
        
        But you decided to strip off the COMMENT part. How convenient for your fanboy argumentation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 4:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Haha. You give him -F for failing to read, but you failed to read. -FF for you!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:59pm
  
  Re:
  "That makes 0 sense whatsoever. M$ were the "operators" of Windows, and still were guilty of Anti-trust. Being the operator makes you in no way exempt from it, which is what the sentence clearly assumes."
  
  *THAT* makes no sense. The carriers merely implemented a communication standard. Communication standards, by their definition, need to be agreed upon by the various intervening parties, or else, you're going to have a hell of a hard time to implement it. You couldn't have, say, the internet if every computed decided to implement it's own version of a communication protocol. Get it?
  
  Microsoft's case was different because they abused their position and were pushing their own product, and giving no chance for others to compete.
  
  One final point: I certainly hope that Microsoft is not operation on MY windows. This thing already has enough problems as it is. I don't need some smart-ass MS tech messing around with it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Carriers != Operators.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, excuse my English (which is not my primary language). But does that invalidate my point?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Excuse me for a second. Is wikipedia lying to me?
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_operator
      
      also:
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile _carrier
      
      Which redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators .
      
      So, it appears to me that they are, in fact, the same.
      
      Care to illuminate me? Is there any subtle difference I am missing?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jill, 2 Apr 2011 @ 6:56am
        
        It wouldn't be on the Internet, if it wasn't total true.
        > Excuse me for a second. Is wikipedia lying to me?
        
        It wouldn't be on the Internet, if it wasn't totally true.
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - harbingerofdoom (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      please lay out your definition of carriers vs operators.
      
      i think therein lies the genisis of your mistep
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - harbingerofdoom (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and no... no i cannot spell correctly thanks for noticing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SomeGuy (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Carrier == Network Operator
      
      That is to say, they operate/manage the network. And part of that is enabling devices to communicate with each other. And part of that is enabling standards such as MMS.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    BUT PIE MAKES MY TUMMY SMILEY!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 5:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure the point of comparing MS was not for culpability. Merely to show that Mike's sentence doesn't make sense... which it doesn't. Mike is effectively saying that Operators could not be in cahoots. Even if they are not in this case, they clearly can be. +1 for original AC poster.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 5:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    MMS is not a standard. Anyone can write their own version, which could, to some extent, be a fully working P2P system. I believe in this case it is not, but that does not take away liability from the operators.
    
    They, by definition, operate the network, and could very well implement whichever software they want, regardless of if it fits with the "industry standards". We've seen it plenty of times before, operators failing horribly. Why could that never happen?
    
    And again, I believe MS was an example, which you people took completely out of context, as you usually do here on techdirt. I see the word fanboy above, and try not to use it, but when you see people giving grades for failing to read themselves, it's hard to not use it; especially when you people like to call trolls anyone who doesn't agree with you.
    
    You reap what you sow, eh Mike.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2011 @ 5:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you go here and start reading up, you'll see how a mess MMS (and SMS) really is, and how easy it is to "abide to standards" which are pretty much non-existant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:51pm

Can Vexatious Litigation get you disbarred ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_% 28activist%29
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2011 @ 8:57am

i don't get it
i hope they win, what is the harm in paying creators a share for the use of their content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BongoBern (profile), 3 Apr 2011 @ 11:20am

Which widget will wemain?
Sounds like hot air and baloney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]