It's interesting that AT&T isn't disputing the lack of 3G coverage claim. Instead, they're stretching to say Verizon was implying something else with clearly-labeled maps.

Pretty inane. I doubt they'll win. It reflects pretty badly on them, too.

Agreed. Total waste of AT&T's money to pursue this. Embarrassing on their part, if you ask me.

WAIT! Here's an idea: The money they are spending on legal for this lawsuit they could use to improve the network!

Ha, I know, that's just craaaaazy talk. Silly me.

Anyone who has driven across the US with an iPhone (or, hell, tried to use on in San Francisco) knows AT&T's 3G network is total crap. I don't think they win by fighting this characterization.

If Verizon's PR people are good they'll milk this all the way to the bank. Let this drag on, generate a lot of press coverage, keep harping on the fact that AT&T really doesn't have good 3G coverage.

AT&T should counter with a pie chart of "percent of population with 3G coverage". AT&T's and Verizon's coverage will look identical then.

(I used to have AT&T, and traveled a lot, but was never out of range of their 3G service. Verizon certainly has a good network, but AT&T's is not horribly bad.)

I guess it depends where you live, and whether or not you travel. I frankly don't care if they have 3G in new mexico, as it wouldn't concern me, and I'd probably never go there.

You've got it. AT&T's own advertising materials tout the exact coverage shown by Verizon's ad as "3G". There is no basis for this legal case.

Both maps clearly state 3G coverage in the ad and do not say network coverage anywhere in it, why even go for a lawsuit like this?