Dreamwire Vs PCI Subnetwork
There was a time when MetroPCS was on the verge of folding. However, the company’s stock price has rocketed since late last year. The merger with arch-rival Nortel gave it a lot of needed money to expand its business into new markets. The deal was a major victory for investors who preferred owning a cable TV company rather than a phone service. Now, it’s poised to fight back against rivals like Charter Communications and AT&T with its new JV with Dreamwire.
The two companies have about forty patents and several thousand patents each covering several different services. Each of them is unique and has different components. It seems a shame that we are using them. Yet, we do.
What is the MetroPCS lawsuit all about?
One of the components of the lawsuit pertains to the way in which Dreamwire violated a patent owned by the company. The issue of whether or not the company intentionally copied Cisco’s intellectual property led to the suit. In essence, Dreamwire copied the way in which Cisco designs and implements certain network functions, including traffic analysis, security, routing, and even data center management.
So what exactly is the lawsuit all about?
The plaintiffs argue that they are the true victims here. They say that they have suffered a great deal because they lost time, money, and a great deal of their reputation due to the alleged illegal activities of Dreamwire. Some of the alleged defamatory acts include statements such as “You don’t need a computer to run a business” and “No business can survive on telephones alone.” These statements are not only false but also libelous under the law.
Another part of the case deals with the manner in which Dreamwire marketed its products.
You see, it was only after the merger that MetroPCS could begin selling its customers individual Internet service plans. This was a huge benefit to the plaintiffs. However, they say that Dreamwire was guilty of calling the customers and inducing them to go ahead with a plan that they already had or worse, a completely bogus service plan. They further claim that Dreamwire never offered them any service or support for the claims they made in their advertising. This is especially telling, considering the fact that the bulk of the case focuses on how Dreamwire marketed its individual Internet service plans in direct opposition to Cisco’s own Internet service offerings.
The two companies met in the late 1990s. Their relationship was a budding one that lasted until the latter company became too big for MetroPCS to handle. At that point, Cisco stepped in and purchased MetroPCS. Many of the lawsuits revolve around whether or not the merger itself was an illegal act. It’s fairly certain that it was a consideration. After all, the sale of the company left MetroPCS in a bad position financially.
The case also revolves around how the breach of contract and breach of warranty issues are supposed to work in favor of the plaintiff.
The two parties met in the hopes of having a successful business relationship, which is exactly what happened in this case. However, when the other company failed to live up to its end of the deal, the plaintiff was left holding the bag for the financial damages. It seems as though this particular aspect of the case may have been overlooked due to the complexity involved.
There is a strong chance that this lawsuit could wind up in court.
There is also a chance that it might not. If the case does wind up going to court, there is a strong chance that the judge will allow it to be tried in Southern California, which is where Dreamwire is located. This means that either the plaintiff or the defendant will have to fight the case in the local court. If the plaintiff wins, then the entire network installation will be put on hold until the ruling is made. If the defendant wins, then they will have to come back to court in Southern California to argue their case and attempt to recover any damages from Dreamwire.