It's more like they're saying :
"There's more than one way to infringe, but T-Mobile's approach was far and away the most obvious, direct, and flagrant, among the MAJORS in telecom services".
And, I think that's exactly right... but, the emphasis is on "majors" in a specific focus in application, and not a claim of exclusiveness, otherwise.
When "the industry" met in San Jose to discuss how best to suppress the CLYW patents, there were a couple of disagreements among the participants. None about whether or not patent suppression was a good idea, only about whether or not a specific approach to the issue was better than any other.
So, in the result, the UMA group took a different tack in addressing the plan to suppress and infringe the CLYW patent than AT&T and others did...
AT&T looked at that approach T-Mobile took, rightly determined that it was an obvious loser, and told them so... And, the guys at AT&T opted out of cooperation with that effort, and instead took a different path to obfuscating their intended suppression and their infringement...
They're both responsible for suppression, and for infringing, but, as a result of their disagreements, (or, the structure of their agreements that resulted) they've gone about it in different ways... expecting that one approach would be "obvious" and the other would be "less obvious"...
They both look pretty obvious to me...
You can divide the arguments along two lines...
The T-Mobile approach is to claim loudly that "that's not using distance" when they do what they do...
The AT&T approach is instead to claim "what's happening inside the black box is not switching"...
Both are wrong.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
