May 2012

Dish sued the big four television networks over its new ad-skipping Auto Hop feature, even as Fox filed the first network lawsuit to stop Dish from offering the technology. Dish sought a federal court's "declaratory judgment on questions" related to Auto Hop, which allows viewers to skip commercials when they watch previously aired shows. Fox, meanwhile, accused Dish of copyright violations.

The lawsuits could be the first of many. Dish said in its filing that it was suing because "the Major Television Networks have threatened it with litigation" intended to stifle Auto Hop, which it debuted May 10. Fox made good on that threat. "We were given no choice but to file suit against one of our largest distributors, Dish Network, because of their surprising move to market a product with the clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem," Fox said in a statement. "Their wrongheaded decision requires us to take swift action in order to aggressively defend the future of free, over-the-air television." Dish sued Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Fox sued Dish in the Central District of California.

Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) said that Verizon Wireless' bid to buy spectrum and enter into marketing agreements with a group of cable companies raises "serious competition concerns."

"Without reaching any final judgment as to the legality of these transactions under antitrust laws or the Communications Act, I believe these transactions present serious competition concerns, which should be examined closely by your agencies," Chairman Kohl said in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski. In considering the spectrum sale, Chairman Kohl urged both the FCC and Justice to consider whether selling a valuable chunk of spectrum to the nation's biggest wireless provider would harm competition. In weighing such transactions, the FCC must determine whether such deals are in the "public interest." "The FCC should be guided by the principle that wireless spectrum is not simply a privately held commercial asset but consists of the public airwaves to be deployed in the public interest," Chairman Kohl wrote. "For this reason, the parties to the transaction bear the burden of proving that it will serve the public interest." Verizon argues that the cable firms are not using the stretch of spectrum, called Advanced Wireless Services or AWS, now and that it would use it to build out its next-generation 4G wireless service. Verizon has pledged to sell two other spectrum licenses if its deal with the cable firms is approved. Chairman Kohl also raised issues with the marketing agreements, noting that Verizon and the cable firms are currently "fierce" competitors in the dozen states where Verizon offers its FiOS fiber Internet, phone and video service. Critics argue that the marketing deals amount to a truce between Verizon and the cable firms and could lead to higher prices and less choice for consumers for wired Internet, phone and video service. Noting the "potential risks to competition," Kohl urged Justice to consider trying to block the marketing agreements from taking hold in areas where Verizon has deployed or is planning to launch its FiOS service if the agency determines that the deals would violate antitrust laws.

June 27. That’s the day Microsoft will learn whether anything has come of its challenge to the $1.14 billion penalty the European Union slapped it with eight years ago for failing to comply with its antitrust decision. In just over a month’s time, the EU’s General Court will rule on Microsoft’s appeal of the fine, the culmination of a long, contentious legal battle over interoperability. Issued after it was determined that Microsoft had failed to comply with a 2004 antitrust judgment that required the company to charge fair and reasonable rates for its interoperability protocols, the $1.14 billion fine was the largest ever imposed by the EU against a single company, and the very first to be meted out for noncompliance with an EU court order. It was also, in Microsoft’s opinion, “unnecessary, unlawful and totally disproportionate.”

Huawei, China’s largest phone-equipment maker, filed an antitrust complaint with European Union regulators that accuses InterDigital of refusing to license key wireless patents.

Huawei alleges that InterDigital is abusing a dominant position for 3G technology patents agreed as industry standards and has made “unreasonable and discriminatory demands” on license fees, said Roland Sladek, a spokesman for Huawei in Shenzhen, China. Huawei filed the complaint because there was “no foreseeable resolution” to talks on the fees. InterDigital, based in King of Prussia (PA), owns about 1,300 U.S. patents related to mobile phones. Last year, InterDigital filed a case with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, alleging that Huawei, Nokia Oyj, ZTE Corp. and LG Electronics Inc. infringed patents related to so-called third-generation wireless technology. It has also sued the companies in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware, making the same allegations.