People have been talking about a "white iPhone" for ages, expecting that Apple would eventually reintroduce a model with a white back, which it had on an older model. However, one enterprising teen started offing a conversion kit last fall that would let people "repair" their own iPhones and replace the back with a white back that he sourced from China, where they were apparently labeled as "repair parts." All of that sounds like something that should be perfectly legal. After all, you bought your phone, you should be able to modify it, and the kid selling the parts should be able to sell you those parts. But, instead, Apple sued NYC-based teenager Fei Lam last week, and he's apparently taking on the company without a lawyer. It's too bad, but he's expected to settle the case rather than fight Apple. I can totally understand why he'd settle, but it's really quite ridiculous that Apple would sue over this.

We've already covered one class action lawsuit filed against Google for its WiFi data slurping activities, and it appears that lots and lots of lawyers are trying to jump into the game. Eric Goldman has a list of at least seven such class action lawsuits that have been filed already. While we agree that Google's actions were bad, and do deserve some scrutiny, I find it difficult to believe these lawsuits can get anywhere. In the first one that we covered, we noted that one of the complaints was from a woman who sent confidential company data via her own, unsecured WiFi access point, and we couldn't figure out how that was Google's fault.

The real issue, though, is that it will be nearly impossible (if not impossible) for anyone in any of these lawsuits to first show that any of their specific data was recorded by Google, and secondly, that any harm came to them because of it. And, as we've noted multiple times, the courts seem to want to (a) see actual privacy being breached, rather than theoretical privacy being breached and (b) see actually harm come to the plaintiffs from those breaches. Without either of those things, it's hard to see these lawsuits getting very far.

As Goldman notes, not at all sarcastically:

It's remarkable that these lawyers were able to conclude to their satisfaction that their named plaintiffs in fact had their payload data captured in the process--presumably by confirming that payload data was actually being transmitted at the precise time the cars drove by. I'm not sure how I would research this issue sufficient to satisfy my Rule 11 obligation, but these attorneys surely didn't just assume Google captured their clients' payload data...did they?

For years, we've heard of people freaking out about WiFi or mobile phones, claiming they have "electromagnetic sensitivity" to those things. The only problem is that in double-blind tests, there is no evidence that any sensitivity is due to electromagnetic waves. And yet, people keep insisting it must be true. In the latest extreme case, a guy in Santa Fe is suing his neighbor for not turning off his WiFi or mobile phone, saying that it caused him to become homeless:

Firstenberg "cannot stay in a hotel, because hotels and motels all employ wi-fi connections, which trigger a severe illness," says the request for a preliminary injunction. "If (Firstenberg) cannot obtain preliminary relief, he will be forced to continue to sleep in his car, enduring winter cold and discomfort, until this case can be heard."

We still don't understand why AT&T called so much more attention to Verizon's ads that highlight AT&T's weak 3G network coverage by suing over the ads. Things were made worse when a judge refused to block the ads from airing. Perhaps finally realizing that all this was doing was creating free advertising for Verizon -- and more attention on the quality of AT&T's network -- the company has decided to drop the lawsuit. Apparently, instead, it's going to focus on its own misleading ad campaign.

One of the better decisions to come out of the FCC during Kevin Martin's reign was the decision to free up the "white spaces" spectrum that lies in between TV broadcasts for other uses. The white spaces are unused spectrum that sit in between TV broadcasters' signals. They were important in analog broadcasts to keep stations' signals from interfering with each other, but they are less crucial in digital broadcasts (like the ones the US will eventually switch to). White spaces proponents say that they can effectively be reused by unlicensed devices that can seek out empty spectrum and use it to communicate, without interfering with licensed broadcasts, and the FCC concurred -- and, of course, made that a key part of its approval of the technologies. But as ever, the National Association of Broadcasters disagrees, and has sued to block usage of the white spaces, arguing it will interfere with their members' broadcasts.

We might be more sympathetic to the NAB's claim if it didn't have such a long and glorious history of trying to stifle anything that competes with incumbent broadcasters, and have such an annoying way of doing it. The FCC has put significant stipulations in place to ensure that white space devices don't cause interference, and despite the NAB's contention, the prototypes that failed in the testing process didn't do so. The FCC got it right by approving use of the white spaces with the restrictions and rules it put in place to tame interference; the NAB has once again got it wrong by trying to stifle innovation, and perhaps competition.

While most people think of just the NTP lawsuit when they hear about RIM and patent infringement troubles, what's often left out of the discussion is that prior to the NTP suit, RIM was one of the more aggressive companies in filing patent infringement lawsuits against everyone else. In fact, it was news articles about RIM's aggressive patent enforcement strategy that convinced the guys behind NTP to file their lawsuit in the first place. Since paying $612.5 million to NTP to settle that battle, other patent holders have been lining up to sue RIM as well.

Earlier this year, we wrote about another aggressive patent enforcer, Wi-LAN, which sued RIM for infringement. RIM, once again, settled -- indicating a bit of an open season. If you happen to have a patent that RIM might sorta possibly infringe on, why not sue?

The latest to step up to bat is Mformation, who has sued RIM for two separate patents which are both about remote management of a wireless device (Patent 1 and Patent 2). Whatever the merits of the case, all of this has to make you wonder if RIM regrets its decision to kick off the process of suing lots of companies for patent infringement. It seems that the blowback was a lot worse than any benefit.

Last year, we wrote about an antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple for sending an update that disabled, or "bricked," the iPhones of people who had changed the firmware to accept outside programs. While Apple tried to push for a dismissal of the lawsuit, a judge has denied the motion to dismiss and will let the case carry on. While a full-on antitrust finding seems unlikely, there are elements of the case that may get Apple into trouble down the road -- and it all comes back to Apple's Achilles' heel: its desire to control absolutely everything, even after you've bought it. Depending on how this case works out, Apple may discover that it (legally) needs to learn to loosen the strings a bit.