Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile Sues Starbucks Over Free Wi-Fi Deal
Glenn Fleishman writes "T-Mobile sent me the text of a lawsuit they filed yesterday against Starbucks. The telecom firm alleges that Starbucks didn't involve it in any discussions to launch their free loyalty program Wi-Fi service this week with AT&T. AT&T is gradually taking over hot-spot operation from T-Mobile, market by market over the course of 2008. T-Mobile told me Starbucks is essentially giving away something that isn't theirs. T-Mobile has sued to halt the two-hours-a-day of free service, and is asking for money to cover losses. This might sound like sour grapes, but T-Mobile still operates most of the network, and says that the terms to which they agreed with Starbucks and AT&T for the transition and with AT&T for bilateral roaming don't cover this situation at all. Maybe free access in exchange for buying a cup of joe every 30 days was too good to be true (this soon)."
the problem, is that starbucks rolled out this wifi thing in 2002, and instead of putting in highspeed internet in each and every starbucks, they put in a wi-fi access point that relayed the data over a cellular network.
much cheaper than paying $40 a month per location for dsl/cable, assuming each store could even realistically get broadband service.
every place that has 'free' wifi, is a place where they put in high speed internet for their 'inventory' system, and the 'free wifi' piggybacks on that internet connection. in some cases, they use satelite for the inventory system ugh.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I'm not sure that's quite true. As a technician for tmobile, I have been involved in setting up many tmobile hotspots and each one has been some sort of T1 connection to the site.
Trademark, not copyright. Here. I don't really care about the merits of T-Mobile's claims, but there is Supreme Court precedent saying that a color can be trademarked in certain narrow circumstances (the alleged holder must show "secondary meaning"--basically, that customers associate the color with the brand). Recall that trademark traditionally (and arguably still mostly) is geared towards alleviating customer confusion. In that light, such a trademark might make sense (again, not saying it does in T-Mobile's case, as I don't know anything about it).
See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1994) for illumination. I disagreed with the concept until I studied the case in IP Law. Now I'm neutral.
There's nothing about Wi-Fi technology which would prevent AT&T and T-Mobile from both being offered in the same stores. Choose the provider whose price suits you best. (Per-hour for T-Mobile, or mandatory occasional coffee purchase for AT&T.)
If T-Mobile has no exclusivity contract, then my ruling would be that they are up the creek.
Then again, IANAJ.
Yup, you are correct, I consulted for initial deployments in some markets. TMO is footing the bill for the free AT&T/Starbucks usage.
If Starbucks so choose to have free access then the terms of the agreement require them to pay for the service out of their marketing or operating budget. Right now the free service with a drink/starbucks card is NOT being payed for to the provider, T-Mobile. That is what the beef is about.
TMO agreed to a proper transition with free services to be handled by AT&T once the full equipment handover occurred.
If Starbucks wants to offer free service before the full cut over, then AT&T needs to be paying T-Mobile for the usage.
Remember there is a revenue agreement in place through 2009 where T-Mobile is the CURRENT provider until all the hw is moved over to AT&T.
Make sense folks?
The phrase you are looking for is tortious interference, where someone influences a party in a contract to breach that contract, or otherwise works to prevent a contract being established by two other parties.