[Terretta]

> this is in no way an endorsement of Apple’s behavior

As if Apple invented the Kodak/Nokia/Motorola/Qualcomm portfolio licensing pricing game.

(Though at least these companies invent and sell things, a point Joe Wilcox forgets when he lobs accusations of patent trolling at them.)

[Kylekramer]

Just like the much else about patent world, being first to build a dubious portfolio to shut down competition doesn't mean much. It is still behavior unworthy of endorsement.

[Terretta]

Being first to invent and first to market a device that rethought users' interaction with phones, and therefore unquestionably "changed the game", means quite a lot.

Patent litigation behavior among cell phone makers to settle licensing scores is the real prior art here, and that's what is "unworthy of endorsement".

That the inventors of this behavior turned on the newcomer (even to the point of trying to withdraw patent pool patents) is even less worthy of endorsement.

To me, the question is: why is this the playing field?

Why call Apple out for playing by the rules the others set long before Apple joined the game and upset the incumbents? Why demand Apple to be held to different standards? Why not talk about the industry as a whole instead of naming Apple (see: patents, Foxconn conditions, signal drop when cupped in hand, etc.)?

Given the problem is the playing field and rules set before Apple had a phone to sell, why not try to do something about that, instead of condemning Apple for currently doing better at the incumbents' game than the incumbents? (A situation nobody seems to believe will last anyway.)