Patent jury foreman advises Apple to sue Google directly

“The foreman of the jury that awarded Apple just 5.5 percent of the $2.2B it claimed Samsung owed for patent infringements said yesterday that Apple should sue Google rather than handset manufacturers, reports the WSJ,” Ben Lovejoy reports for 9to5Mac. “‘If you really feel that Google is the cause behind this, as I think everybody has observed, then don’t beat around the bush,’ said Tom Dunham, whose job at IBM was to oversee developers expected to file patents. ‘Let the courts decide. But a more direct approach may be something to think about.'”

“Apple likely chose to sue Samsung as the company makes more money from Android than anyone else,” Lovejoy reports. “After being awarded such a trivial sum in the scheme of things, however, there would seem to be little to gain from Apple going after Google directly, especially as it won on only two of the Android-related features.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Any company that infringes on Apple’s patented intellectual property is subject to a lawsuit. This jury foreman’s hubris is nearly as laughable as the legal system’s competency in dealing with blatantly obvious and rampant IP theft.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

Hhere’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
cellphones before and after Apple iPhone

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Dan K.” for the heads up.]


  1. The jury completely blew it, and Apple should be screaming bloody murder. Their task was not to decide on a “fair and reasonable” licensing fee, which is what the foreman said they did. It was to assess damages from lost sales. Apple was not a willing licensee, and therefor would not have offered a “fair and reasonable” price per license. Apple’s patents are not Standards Essential Patents to be licensed on a FRAND basis to all comers. The jury completely misunderstood their job, and the whole verdict should be set aside.

    1. Again, I’m betting we can point directly back at Judge Koh for poorly advising the jury. We know perfectly well she screwed up advising the jury regarding damages to Apple in the previous A vs S case. Does she have a CLUE what she’s adjudicating? I have to wonder.

    2. I suspect Apple did not want this guy on the jury. But in federal court, the parties have a few peremptory strikes (i.e. strikes for no cause in particular). It is very likely Apple had to use its peremptory strikes to get rid of worse members of the jury panel. As a result, they were stuck with this guy.

      1. Not sure why he was allowed to stay. Lawyers for any side in a case like this really, really dislike having subject matter experts (or people who think they are SMEs) on juries. They tend to take over deliberations and you get a one person jury, as in this case.

    3. Why are people afraid to point out that this guy should not have been part of the Jury. – IBM!

      “said Tom Dunham, whose job at IBM was to oversee developers expected to file patents.”

      1. Agree with all above. Tom Dunham is a moron. It sounds like he just took the law into his own hands by deciding this lawsuit — which, by the way, buddy, in case you missed it, was against Samsung — should instead have been against Google. You missed the point, dude. If, after suing Samsung, Apple chooses to sue Google, that is Apple’s prerogative. But that decision is Apple’s to make, not Tom Dunham.

    4. Fucking jury foreman now giving legal advice to Apple? Google is the thief and Samsung is FENCING stolen goods and making awful
      Lots of money. This case is about Samdung fencing! Just because
      he’s from IBM doesn’t make him knows every shit about patents
      Infringement. All jury in this case are IDIOTS! They think of themselves as fair and just, what a stupid bunch of people.

      1. Since Google had a side deal with Samsung to help cover Samsung’s damages, Apple was in effect suing Google. Samsung was to be first in line because they were the most obvious and prolific thief.

  2. I’d like a legal analysis of whether it is effective to sue an ‘open source’ project. Yeah, we all know Android is NOT REALLY an ‘open source’ project, as Google clearly demonstrates through it’s obfuscation of its own proprietary Android code. But this sounds a bit tangly and tricky to me. I ain’t no lawyer, apart from some awareness business and contract law.

    1. Google makes advertising revenue from Android – at least that’s the business case it makes for supporting Android’s existence. While I don’t think it make sense to sue an open source project directly, I think it does make sense to sue a for-profit company that makes money using an open source project that infringes on patents.

  3. Why not just file suit against all of them? Google, Samsung, HTC, the whole cabal. I mean, yes, Google is the one who stole the technology, but it is the manufacturers who are profiting from it. It’s basically a giant conspiracy. So take ’em all to court together.

    1. Apple has not, and will not, sue Google directly (over Android) because Apple wants Android (as a platform) to exist.

      In a world where Android is the only OTHER viable mobile computing platform, Apple makes most of the available profit in smartphones and tablets. Android increases the “pool” of smartphone and tablet users much faster than Apple can by itself, and most of those novice Android users eventually become loyal Apple customers. Android is responsible for destroying (or decimating) Apple’s competition (BlackBerry, Palm, Wndows Mobile, Symbian, …), and now serves to block new mobile platforms from emerging. And Android is no threat to Apple, where Apple chooses to compete. Apple versus Android (like Mac versus Windows) is the game Apple wants to play…

      Android (as a platform) has helped Apple MUCH more than hurt Apple. THAT is why Google is never the target of Apple’s Android-related legal action. Apple only targets direct competitors that use Android and become a bit too successful (and blatant) at ripping off Apple’s IP.

  4. Yea, like Google warned Samsung it was copying too closely. Well, jury foreman… What about intent? Samsung has this need to copy, flood, and whine until there patents are copied. Then they sue and cry.

  5. My take: Apple doesn’t really care that they got little money out of this. What they wanted was “willful” infringement and thats what they got. The huge amount they wanted for lost sales was designed to at least get the jury to decide willful infringement. There will be a third trial over more patents and any victories from all three cases will be used as fodder against Google when Apple does sue them, maybe next year when their search agreement runs out. Thats also probably when Apple will come out with its own Search (Its also very possible that Scott Forestall is working on this in secret for Apple since his background is AI). Then its game over for Android and Google.

    1. I doubt Scott Forstall is working on anything at Apple. The whole point of his stepping down was that he wasn’t able to work well with others (like Ive) who would be responsible for things like implementing search. Also if search were imminent, we would’ve seen a huge hiring binge at Apple for search-specific positions.

      The rumor in the area is that Forstall is “unavailable” as he’s being paid under contract by Apple not to take any positions or do any public speaking. I know some startups in the area who are interested in him, but can’t even find him.

      It’s kind of creepy actually, as you used to see him driving around in his silver Mercedes SL55 all the time, but he’s totally disappeared. Maybe Tim Cook killed him?

      1. Your 1st sentence is probably correct, BUT as you stated there is not alot of search hiring at Apple that could be hidden if Scott were working in private.

    2. I doubt Scott is working on that. It is far more likely for Marissa Mayer’s secret project at Yahoo, to be a new search engine used by Apple and Yahoo, since both Apple’s Google contract and Yahoos Bing contract expire in 2015.

  6. what a bunch of pansy’s on that jury. They might as well be communists. They are most definitely not in favor of innovation, and in favor of Korean scumbags.

  7. Clearly the jury room had an occupant who knew more than anyone else. Facts be damned, instructions be damned and basis for the complaint be damned. The guy clearly didn’t listen well. Could IBMs fade from glory be the result of a bunch of this kind of arrogant assholes? Rot from the top is the worst kind.

  8. Third request: if any of you have concrete suggestions for a justice system that could replace the current one, I would like to hear it. The current courts have major issues, but nobody seems to have any workable affordable alternatives. Sorry, but democracy is inherently messy and inefficient. If you want the trains to run on time, you are welcome to trade it for central control, but please do it in some other country.

  9. Te best way we can do to help apple win is encourage everyone you know to buy apple products and tell the the story of how Samsung and google ripped apple off by stealing.

    Spread the word and convert as many people to apple as possible.

    That is how apple wins this.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.