Headline Feeds
Another wireless carrier has jumped to the side of Samsung in a patent lawsuit pressed by Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL).
T-Mobile filed a friend of the court brief in the case Wednesday. In it, the carrier opposes Apple's move to stop the sale of several Samsung phone models in the United States, through the issuance of a preliminary injunction, before the dispute between the companies can be settled in court.
On Monday, Verizon took a similar action.
When asked to comment on its action, T-Mobile provided MacNewsWorld with a prepared statement on the subject. The statement asserted that T-Mobile believes that owners of intellectual property deserve the right to present their arguments and evidence of infringement in court. However, it said, a preliminary injunction is a drastic and extraordinary measure, and the courts should pay particular attention to its public consequences.
The timing of a preliminary injunction may be especially problematic for T-Mobile. Two Samsung products in particular help anchor the wireless carrier's holiday sales 
, and T-Mobile said this would unnecessarily harm it and its customers. The public interest weighs heavily against granting Apple's move to stop sales before a trial takes place, it asserted.
T-Mobile's action came eight days after reports surfaced that the company would not be selling iPhones this year.
Extraordinary Measure
Preliminary injunctions are always considered extraordinary because they put a lock on a product before its maker can present its case in court, explained Matt Macari, a patent attorney with Skaar Ulbrich Macari and author of the blog Litigating Apple.
"Preliminary injuctions are extraordinary for a reason," he told MacNewsWorld. "They're a rather harsh remedy for a party that's defending itself.
"They tend to be granted more often in patent cases than perhaps a regular civil matter," he added, "but they're still the exception to the rule."
What a court weighs when deciding on a request for a preliminary injunction is the merits of the case -- the liklihood of its success in court -- and whether a patent is valid, he explained.
Other issues, like the those raised by T-Mobile and Verizon in their filings, carry less weight with a court. "Issues like public interest are just weighing factors that the court uses in closer cases to determine if its going to issue a preliminary injunction," Macari said.
He added that briefs such as those filed by the carriers are "more of a public statement than they are an actual deciding factor in the litigation."
Carriers Feel Threatened
Filing friend of the court briefs in patent cases is rare, so the fact that T-Mobile and Verizon decided to do so suggests they see the case threatening their businesses.
One such detrimental impact could be fewer phone models in the marketplace.
"T-Mobile doesn't want to have any handsets taken off their market," telecommunications analyst Jeff Kagan told MacNewsWorld. "They want as many as they can for competitive reasons."
Verizon, on the other hand, may have different reasons for its participation in the case.
"It's seeing a feud by two companies getting in the way of it selling services and devices," Kagan contended.
In its filing with the court, Verizon argued that the issuing of a preliminary injunction in the case would hurt consumers and delay the deployment of next-generation wireless networks, a delay that would be contrary to the goals of the U.S. government.
Apple did not respond to requests by MacNewsWorld for comment on the case, but in a motion filed Tuesday with the California U.S. district court considering the matter, it asked that Verizon's brief be rejected.
"The belated nature of Verizon's request deprives Apple of the opportunity to seek discovery (whether from Verizon, Samsung, or another company) to rebut Verizon's claim that a preliminary injunction is contrary to the public interest," it argued.
A hearing on the requested injunction is scheduled for Oct. 13.
Patent lawsuits are nothing new and eventually they're settled, Kagan observed.
"This is how we negotiate today: in court," he said.
