Why Google Has Nothing To Fear From Yet Another Apple Patent Lawsuit
On the first day of yet another trial pitting Apple AAPL +0.91% against Samsung, the real target by most experts’ reckoning is a third party: Google GOOG +1.83%, maker of the Android mobile operating software that is the chief nemesis of the maker of iPhones and iPads. Four of the five patents that Apple claims are infringed by Samsung phones and tablets are actually used in Android, which Samsung devices happen to use.
But for a bunch of reasons, Google in reality has very little to worry about from Apple’s thinly veiled attack on the Internet giant, which Apple has declined to take on directly.
For one, obviously, it’s not the direct target of the suit. So that $2 billion in damages Apple is claiming? That would be zero dollars that Google is liable for. Not quite zero, since trials cost everyone money and executive time. But it’s nothing compared to, say, the several billion dollars Google lost in buying and ultimately selling off Motorola. That was intended to provide itself patent protection against Apple and others, which it probably did, and maybe a way to step up innovation in the Android ecosystem, which it may or may not have done.
OK, but if Apple wins, that’s a big blow to Android and its partners, isn’t it? Well, not really. The patents at issue, including ones for syncing of data in the background, “sliding to unlock” a phone, and automatically completing words as they’re typed, seem more incremental and less obviously unique than the look and feel of iPhones that was the prime issue in Apple’s last suit against Samsung. Apple won that one, to the tune of $930 million, though that amount and the case itself remain under appeal by Samsung. But even that case has had virtually no impact on Android, and certainly not its users.
Samsung Galaxy S3 (Photo credit: Idhren)
And this time, Google’s expected to offer testimony from the likes of Android founder Andy Rubin, who may be able to make a case that his group was already working on software that Apple claims to own. If nothing else, that could go a long way toward blunting Apple’s not entirely unreasonable claim, first voiced in no uncertain terms by the late Steve Jobs, that Android is merely copying Apple’s work.
Conceivably, if Samsung loses again, Google might have to change some aspects of Android, but it has done so before to resolve patent issues fairly easily, and it’s likely to be able to do so again, if it hasn’t already done it. Even that seems unlikely, though, according to several experts. Samsung also could be barred from selling phones such as the Galaxy S3 that are alleged to use the patented technologies. That outcome is deemed even less likely, and probably wouldn’t matter anyway given that we’re a couple of phone generations removed from those anyway.
Not least, that $2 billion in damages, coming to $40 per device, seems unlikelier still to be levied in full, because it’s alleged to be the result of just five patents. Smartphones use around 250,000 patents, so saying those five are worth $40 for a device that costs several hundred dollars seems a stretch–or at least it probably would to the four-person jury in the current case, according to the experts. That’s the case Samsung is implicitly making in its paltry counterclaim against Apple for $7 million in damages for allegedly violating two of Samsung’s patents. For its part, Apple says those patents are just the tip of the iceberg and that it can’t try 50 or more in a trial.
So if Apple doesn’t need the money, isn’t likely to get it all even if it wins, and probably won’t be able to force significant changes in Android in any case, why is it doing this? I think Santa Clara University law professor Brian Love is spot on when he tells Bloomberg , “It seems like there is almost a marketing aspect to the case in that Apple is trying to send a message through all this litigation that ‘We’re the true innovators in the smartphone world, and everyone else is riding our coattails.’ If that’s their goal, it’s kind of hard to put a dollar value on that.”
The thing is, it’s hard to see why Apple needs to bother with that. Everyone already knows Apple’s iPhones and iPhones smoke most of the Android competition anyway. Or at least they think they know. And that’s testament to Apple’s unmatchable brand as well as to its undeniably elegant devices.
You could make a case, as some have, that Apple is only hurting that brand by making a case that Samsung’s phone sales have hurt Apple’s business. If that’s true, people might think that maybe those Android phones are a pretty good replacement for iPhones after all.
I don’t really buy that argument, since most people pay absolutely no attention to patent cases. But in the end, that’s the point: However this trial turns out, it’s just not going to make that much difference to Google.
And this time, Google’s expected to offer testimony from the likes of Android founder Andy Rubin, who may be able to make a case that his group was already working on software that Apple claims to own. If nothing else, that could go a long way toward blunting Apple’s not entirely unreasonable claim, first voiced in no uncertain terms by the late Steve Jobs, that Android is merely copying Apple’s work.
Conceivably, if Samsung loses again, Google might have to change some aspects of Android, but it has done so before to resolve patent issues fairly easily, and it’s likely to be able to do so again, if it hasn’t already done it. Even that seems unlikely, though, according to several experts. Samsung also could be barred from selling phones such as the Galaxy S3 that are alleged to use the patented technologies. That outcome is deemed even less likely, and probably wouldn’t matter anyway given that we’re a couple of phone generations removed from those anyway.
Not least, that $2 billion in damages, coming to $40 per device, seems unlikelier still to be levied in full, because it’s alleged to be the result of just five patents. Smartphones use around 250,000 patents, so saying those five are worth $40 for a device that costs several hundred dollars seems a stretch–or at least it probably would to the four-person jury in the current case, according to the experts. That’s the case Samsung is implicitly making in its paltry counterclaim against Apple for $7 million in damages for allegedly violating two of Samsung’s patents. For its part, Apple says those patents are just the tip of the iceberg and that it can’t try 50 or more in a trial.
So if Apple doesn’t need the money, isn’t likely to get it all even if it wins, and probably won’t be able to force significant changes in Android in any case, why is it doing this? I think Santa Clara University law professor Brian Love is spot on when he tells Bloomberg , “It seems like there is almost a marketing aspect to the case in that Apple is trying to send a message through all this litigation that ‘We’re the true innovators in the smartphone world, and everyone else is riding our coattails.’ If that’s their goal, it’s kind of hard to put a dollar value on that.”
The thing is, it’s hard to see why Apple needs to bother with that. Everyone already knows Apple’s iPhones and iPhones smoke most of the Android competition anyway. Or at least they think they know. And that’s testament to Apple’s unmatchable brand as well as to its undeniably elegant devices.
You could make a case, as some have, that Apple is only hurting that brand by making a case that Samsung’s phone sales have hurt Apple’s business. If that’s true, people might think that maybe those Android phones are a pretty good replacement for iPhones after all.
I don’t really buy that argument, since most people pay absolutely no attention to patent cases. But in the end, that’s the point: However this trial turns out, it’s just not going to make that much difference to Google.
