It's hard to swallow Google claiming the high ground after according to their own analysis, they were willing to pay significantly more than they believed the patents were worth.<p>As they say, "We've established what kind of woman you are, now we are just negotiating price."<p>[<a href="http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what_kind_of_woman_do_you_take_me_for_madam_weve_already_established_that_c/" rel="nofollow">http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what...</a>]
If you look at Android phones from 2007 (to me the one in the link looks <i>very</i> similar to a Blackberry) and if you look at them now you cannot miss how much they have changed to look like the iPhone.<p>You can't even tell it's the same OS.<p>So when you copy you are sued. (If the copying/taking inspiration was reasonable or not is a different issue.) Samsung was sued to copy "look and feel".<p>[<a href="http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-before-and-after-the-launch-of-iphone/" rel="nofollow">http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-l...</a>]
Google is cornered and is taking the appropriate stance. They did not get the patents from the Nortel sale and Apple is already successful in putting pressure on HTC and perhaps other Android manufacturers in the near future. If the situation was different, Google was successful, and released Android before the original iPhone, they would be the one holding the patents to fight off competition.<p>Unfortunately for them, they are late to the party and unwilling to invest enough in mobile intellectual property. They clearly are not only playing and supporting the game but also complaining about the rules.