AT&T Gives Up on Verizon Ad Lawsuit

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It would seem that AT&T has come to its senses and dropped its lawsuit against Verizon for those “there’s a map for that” advertisements. Now if we can just get them to pull those lame ads with Luke Wilson in them we would be all set.

On Wednesday, AT&T formally dismissed the lawsuit. Last month, the wireless operator suffered a major legal setback when a judge rejected the company's request to force Verizon to pull its "There's A Map For That" advertising campaign.
Click to expand...
 
So AT&T is trying to dictate what ads can be run because it makes them look bad........idiots.
 
Just billable hours for lawyers. AT&T is just to stupid at this point.
 
Yes the truth hurts, and the judge can't tell Verizon to pull their ads when its not falsified information of ATT's actual 3g coverage.
 
I agree that the AT&T ads do nothing if you make the connection. AT&T might be able to provide cell service to that many people in all those places, but Verizon's map was still only about 3G coverage.

From a personal standpoint, the postcards commercial mentions Madison, Wisconsin. I know for fact that anywhere outside of Madison is spotty at best. At my dads house 30 minutes drive away from the Madison city line, I have zero AT&T coverage, while my Sprint phone is able to roam on Verizon's voice and data network without issue. AT&T, it's great that you can provide service to major cities, but outside of those major areas is where you fail.
 
Every cell phone provider has their problems. Doesn't matter if its Verizon, Sprint, AT&T or T-Mobile. You can save yourself trouble if you research before purchasing a plan. Simply pick what works best for you. I'm located in Houston, and I have no problems with AT&T whereas Sprint wouldn't work in my office building.

Personal preference.
 
Version_3 said:
AT&T might be able to provide cell service to that many people in all those places, but Verizon's map was still only about 3G coverage.
Click to expand...

I hate those Luke Wilson commercials, so pointless that they don't talk about 3G coverage. To make it worse that commercial always airs in multiple parts...
 
I find these commercials absolutely funny! I live in the Hudson Valley (Orange Cty) and the only time I've gotten 3G on my iPhone is when I'm in Manhattan or Northern NJ. And I'm only down there once an month.

The map says that there's 3G coverage up here and a bit beyond - but I have yet to get it. Edge network is the pits. Its like dial-up, prob worse.
 
All of the recent AT&T ads have been chock full of weaksauce. The Luke Wilson ones in particular, just when you thought the commercial was over, skip one or two, *bam* the 2nd part of the commercial comes on. Like a repeating hell I tell ya!
 
Version_3 said:
<snip>
AT&T, it's great that you can provide service to major cities, but outside of those major areas is where you fail.
Click to expand...

As a Droid user who just ditched an iPhone 3G I can say that major areas suck too. I work/live in the DC Metro area. You would figure DC, NOVA and parts of Maryland would get good service. Well their service is awful in this area.

Verizon's maps were spot on and now I don't get dropped/missed calls, my calls are clear, and my data speeds spank AT&T speeds. AT&T needs to suck it up and actually IMPROVE their networks if they want to fight off Verizon.
 
Now if AT&T could fix their networks they wouldn't have to worry about ads that make them look bad.
 
ir0nw0lf said:
All of the recent AT&T ads have been chock full of weaksauce. The Luke Wilson ones in particular, just when you thought the commercial was over, skip one or two, *bam* the 2nd part of the commercial comes on. Like a repeating hell I tell ya!
Click to expand...

Words rite outa my mouth, weacksauce and all.
 
kittmaster said:
So AT&T is trying to dictate what ads can be run because it makes them look bad........idiots.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Lanham Act allows companies to sue if a competitor misrepresents their products or services, or even the competitor's products and services. Apparently the judge found the ads accurate. I don't care enough to read the details to have an opinion, other han yeah, AT&T sucks.

clarkkent57 said:
Luke Wilson: Drop the weight.
Click to expand...

Glad I am not the only one who noticed that. Barely recognized him. Just because you are the "good looking" Wilson brother, that isn't a very high bar!
 
Serves them right. Between their customer sat going into the tank and the recent spate of extremely lame rebuttle ads, they're a sinking ship.

It's likely their lawyers actually reviewed the Verizon ads and realized they didn't have a leg to stand on.
 
As was mentioned - the new Luke Wilson 97% / 300,000,000 ads are talking about their NETWORK coverage, not their 3g coverage. If you want to see AT&T's 3g coverage map, please see a Verizon ad :)
 
...because AT&T coverage sucks compared to Verizon. ATT Dumb Asses!
 
Now verizon is using this commercials like crazy,
i think its to piss them off :p
 
Vermillion said:
As a Droid user who just ditched an iPhone 3G I can say that major areas suck too. I work/live in the DC Metro area. You would figure DC, NOVA and parts of Maryland would get good service. Well their service is awful in this area.

Verizon's maps were spot on and now I don't get dropped/missed calls, my calls are clear, and my data speeds spank AT&T speeds. AT&T needs to suck it up and actually IMPROVE their networks if they want to fight off Verizon.
Click to expand...

I'm agree. I worked in the Rosslyn area and it was a complete joke (ATT service coverage).
 
Now if they'd just sue em because that ad is a little annoying to listen to 3 times in the hour's drive to work every day... :D
 
dugn said:
It's likely their lawyers actually reviewed the Verizon ads and realized they didn't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

they knew that right off the bat.

but since the economy sucks, they decided to take the job.

if i were an attorney, I would have taken the job too. at $400/hour.


only winners here = the attorneys
 
ATT gets no service at my house.
Verizon gets no service in my county.
Sprint works ok most places here.

I'm just tired of the adds.
 
It seems AT&T's ads are aimed at educating people who equate 3G availability with general cellular service. In other words, those who do not understand what 3G is in the first place. While it makes sense to clarify in this case, it is also pretty pathetic no matter how you look at it. As for the spokesman choice - consider AT&T's target audience from my conjecture.
 
Luke Wilson: Drop the weight.
Click to expand...

Dude, truer words have never been spoken.....


I was like "who is that?, an ugly, fat Drew Brees?" I honestly didn't know who he was at first glance.
 
I saw this article on CNET. AT&T got owned. They should work on expanding their 3G coverage rather than expanding their lawyers' bank accounts. :rolleyes:
 
Sparkhard said:
Dude, truer words have never been spoken.....


I was like "who is that?, an ugly, fat Drew Brees?" I honestly didn't know who he was at first glance.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Yeah AT&T could have picked anyone, but they went with Luke...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top