CEOCFO MAGAZINE
Interview Series -
September 4 Third Amended Complaint
The Antitrust Question About Wi-
CEOCFO Magazine sat down with Emil Malak, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of VoIP-
By Bud Wayne
Senior Contributing Editor, CEOCFO Magazine
DAVID AND THE SIX GOLIATHS
How VoIP-
A VoIP-
$10.5 TRILLION IN COMBINED MARKET VALUE VERSUS A $19 MILLION OTC COMPANY
On one side stand six of the world's largest telecommunications and technology companies:
Apple | Alphabet (Google) | Samsung | AT&T | Verizon | T-
As of early September 2026, their combined market capitalization was approximately $10.5 trillion.
Across the field stands VoIP-
$10.5 trillion versus $19 million — more than half a million to one.
Six Goliaths. One David.
The six do not occupy identical legal positions. VoIP-
VoIP-
Why would a $19 million company take on corporations collectively worth approximately $10.5 trillion?
The answer began with patents.
VoIP-
According to the September 4 Third Amended Complaint, VoIP-
VoIP-
Nearly a decade later, that battle had opened a Pandora's box and raised a much larger question:
Was competition itself being locked out of standalone native Wi-
$740 BILLION IN ANNUAL GROSS PROFIT — AND THE CONSUMER WHO COUNTS EVERY DOLLAR
Using each company's latest full reported year:
Alphabet — $240.3B | Apple — $195.2B | Samsung — $92.4B | Verizon — $81.4B | AT&T — $74.8B | T-
Combined: approximately $740 billion in annual gross profit.
There is nothing wrong with corporate success or enormous profits.
The question at the heart of VoIP-
Was competition allowed to work?
Consider a mother sitting at the kitchen table counting every dollar: rent | groceries | electricity | school expenses | internet | telephone bills.
Or a pensioner living on a fixed income in a nursing home or assisted-
Why shouldn't those consumers have the choice to purchase a lower-
The September 4 complaint specifically identifies low-
VoIP-
Current four-
But that debate can obscure the more important point:
Even the cheapest cellular bundle is still a cellular bundle.
A family whose needs could be met principally over Wi-
Let the cellular bundle compete with the standalone alternative.
Then let the family decide.
WHAT THIS ANTITRUST CASE IS REALLY ABOUT
On September 4, 2026, VoIP-
The complaint pleads four Sherman Act counts: Section 1 tying | Section 1 restraint of trade | Section 2 monopolization | Section 2 predatory pricing.
Strip away the legal terminology and the central issue is simple:
Why must consumers maintain qualifying cellular calling-
According to the complaint:
AT&T requires a qualifying AT&T relationship | Verizon requires a qualifying Verizon relationship | T-
The consumer cannot simply say:
"I already pay for Wi-
And according to VoIP-
"We will."
That is where consumer choice becomes an antitrust question.
THE PATENT BATTLES THAT OPENED PANDORA'S BOX
VoIP-
The September 4 complaint catalogs 36 inter partes review proceedings challenging VoIP-
Years of patent battles eventually exposed a different question:
Why couldn't VoIP-
Why couldn't a company with substantial VoIP technology offer consumers standalone native Wi-
That question opened Pandora's box.
What emerged was no longer merely about patents.
It was about the technological architecture controlling who gets access to the native telephone environment of the smartphone—and who does not.
THE THREE CARRIERS COULD NOT DO IT ALONE
AT&T, Verizon and T-
But they do not control the smartphone operating systems.
The September 4 complaint describes two indispensable sides:
CARRIER — identity | eligibility | entitlement | provisioning | authorization | activation
PLATFORM/OEM — handset and operating-
Then comes the crucial allegation:
"Neither input alone produces materially equivalent native Wi-
Put simply:
The carrier controls one side of the gate. The smartphone platform controls the other. Neither can produce the native result alone.
That is why Apple, Google and Samsung are essential to the technological story.
The complaint points to public Android changes as concrete examples. It alleges that Google changed Android in February 2015 after T-
VoIP-
CUI BONO? — WHO BENEFITS, AND WHO SPEAKS FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICAN WIRELESS CUSTOMERS?
The scale is enormous.
At year-
The dates and terminology are not identical, so these figures should not be added together and presented as a single year-
What they do establish is that the native telephone environment at issue touches hundreds of millions of American wireless phone relationships.
Now follow the financial incentives alleged by VoIP-
The carriers benefit twice.
First, native Wi-
The carrier retains the paying cellular subscriber and the associated service revenues.
Second comes Wi-
Instead of carrying all call traffic over the carrier's cellular radio network, calls can travel over Wi-
The carrier keeps the paying subscriber while some traffic moves onto broadband infrastructure paid for by someone else.
VoIP-
The platform and handset companies benefit as well. Carriers sell, finance, activate, promote and support enormous numbers of smartphones, while carrier-
The economic picture alleged by VoIP-
Carriers preserve subscription revenues and obtain offloading benefits | Platform and handset companies preserve valuable carrier relationships | Hundreds of millions of American phone relationships remain inside the carrier ecosystem | Independent standalone competitors remain outside the native gate
Cui bono? Who benefits?
And if the companies controlling both sides of the gate benefit financially from preserving the existing structure, who has the incentive to open that gate to lower-
CAN A $19 MILLION DAVID SURVIVE SIX GOLIATHS WORTH $10.5 TRILLION?
VoIP-
Q: Across VoIP-
EMIL MALAK: "A small company's access to justice cannot depend on the size of the other side's balance sheet. We believe in our case, and we intend to see it through. The evidence and the courts should decide who is right."
Q: What do you ultimately want?
MALAK: "A fair opportunity to compete. Don't guarantee VoIP-
IS THIS ONLY AN AMERICAN QUESTION?
Q: Is the structure VoIP-
MALAK: "No. Carrier-
"I am not saying our U.S. antitrust allegations prove violations of the laws of those countries. They do not. But the consumer question crosses borders:
Why should native Wi-
Q: What is your larger vision for Wi-
MALAK: "Governments should become Wi-
"Cellular networks remain essential, particularly for mobility. But broadband and Wi-
"Governments should focus resources on extending reliable broadband and Wi-
"Once broadband reaches a community, Wi-
"The goal is not to replace cellular. It is to create another competitive communications highway.
Cellular when cellular makes sense. Wi-
LET THE CONSUMER DECIDE
Nobody should guarantee VoIP-
Nobody should guarantee VoIP-
Nobody should guarantee David victory.
But the size of the opponent should not determine who gets onto the competitive field.
Let AT&T compete | Let Verizon compete | Let T-
If an independent provider can satisfy legitimate requirements for authentication, numbering, emergency calling, lawful intercept, fraud prevention, interoperability and service quality, give it the opportunity to compete.
Let the mother at the kitchen table decide.
Let the pensioner decide.
Let the family decide.
Six Goliaths are entitled to compete. So is a $19 million David.
LET THE CONSUMER — NOT THE GIANTS — DECIDE WHO WINS.
All four actions are pending before Judge Randolph D. Moss. Motions to dismiss are currently before the Court. All information referenced in this article is drawn from publicly filed court documents, publicly available financial disclosures, and public government sources.
Bud Wayne
Senior Contributing Editor
CEOCFO Magazine
NOTE: This content is not the view of nor endorsed by CEOCFO Magazine or its advertisers.