14 DAY TRIAL // If you’re wondering why that California jury decided that Apple was not entitled to much compensation from Samsung, here’s the answer. The foreman of said jury has openly stated his opinion that the California company should have gone after Google (Android OS) directly instead of suing the Korean company that sold the most Android phones.
Published by the Wall Street Journal, the jury foreman’s statement reads, “If you really feel that Google is the cause behind this, as I think everybody has observed, then don’t beat around the bush. Let the courts decide. But a more direct approach may be something to think about.”
The advice comes from Tom Dunham, a former IBM employee whose job was to oversee patent-related stuff.
While it’s true that Android has been the first product to rip off iOS (then called iPhone OS), Apple’s decision to go after Samsung is perhaps even more justified. Here’s another take on the matter.
Editor’s note Samsung is the company that actually “sells” the Android OS. Google’s Nexus devices are practically inexistent in a sea of iPhones and Galaxy phones, plus Samsung does all the marketing. It’s also Samsung that sells the complete, end product, if you will. And that’s the space Apple competes in, not software, but software + hardware.
Android is nothing without a phone to run on, and Samsung has shown the most willingness to copy Apple’s designs, including in software. The slide-to-unlock feature is by far the most representative for the iPhone than any of the other cited patents in the suit. It was Samsung’s decision, not Google’s, to infringe on that patent, and the jury ruled that they did so deliberately.
It’s also Samsung that makes the most money by ripping off Apple. So it makes sense to clear out the biggest danger, and then go after the second biggest – Google. Who ever said Apple was not going to sue Google directly? The papers could be prepared as you are reading these lines.
Android doesn’t hurt iOS half as much as Samsung’s misleading marketing hurts Apple’s entire iPhone and iPad businesses combined. What’s the point of going after a measly copy of the iPhone OS when someone else is actively ripping off the actual device that was designed for it? When they see the ad on TV, customers tend to remember the phone as a whole, not the OS running on its tiny touchscreen.
So before jurors decide to give Apple legal advice, perhaps they should just try to do justice and leave it at that. Tim Cook and his troops have stated their case loud and clear, whereas Samsung has used delay tactics and shady arguments, all while continuing to sell its half-baked solutions by the millions.