[michaelf]

With regard to your suggestion that Apple is the offensive party in patent disputes, it's important to remember that the roles of offense and defense are reversed when you enter a court. This is because of the presumption of innocence.

When a murderer enters a courtroom, he's the defendant because he is presumed innocent. If the jury returns a guilty verdict, he becomes an offender, and the roles switch back. Following the verdict, it would be justified to view the prosecution as having defended society against the murderer who committed the offense. Prior to the verdict, the jury agrees to see things the other way around.

Likewise, Apple brings suit because, in its view, its patents should defend their innovations against copying. Again, because of the presumption of innocence, Samsung (or whoever) plays the role of defendant until a verdict is returned. Should Apple win their suit, then (under law) Samsung will be viewed as the offender, and Apple will have successfully defended itself against unlawful copying.

Which is a long way of saying that, if you believe that Samsung has unlawfully copied Apple's innovations, then it's entirely correct to view Apple as the defensive party in this patent mess.

[Udo]

I don't know how it is in the States, but here in Germany a patent holder suing in court is always presumed right until the defendant can prove his innocence (if he can). There is no presumption of innocence in patent cases. It's called "reversed burden of proof" or something. The allegation of the patent holder is enough to make a party guilty until proven otherwise. I'm sure it must be similar in the US.