The whole "patents kill new entrants" idea has kind of been exploded by the fact that two companies that didn't make phone OS's 6 years ago and didn't have a lot of mobile IP now have close to 90% of the market.
Apple bought up several companies that did have relevant patents and technology. Google did the same thing.
In the age of nuclear patents, you either have to have tons of money to license patents, buy companies that own patents, or successfully be granted patents.
Why do I need tons of money to be granted a patent? Or license? What hypothetical new entrant to commercial scale phone design and manufacturing doesn't have any money?
It might sound better but it doesn't align with the fact that not only Apple and Google are new entrants but the field is flooded with more competition then ever before.
Apple blasted open the gates at the carriers and now the writing is on the wall: build a better mousetrap and they will come. Android/linux is a set of cheap building blocks.
I certainly meant it in the most positive way. I'm a big iOS fan but I'm also a big Android fan. To say that Microsoft, Apple and Google are are going to shut out new entrants misses the fact that Android is mostly open sourced and ideal for new entrants like Xioami and Amazon to build on.
Phones have become more and more like computers over those 6 years (and this trend was obvious before that). Apple isn't a newcomer to the computer market (and their earlier history is serving them well - many of the patents they're using aggressively come from the 90s).
On the other hand, Google is a relative newcomer and it has been an issue for them (so much so that they eventually decided to buy one of the older players for their patents).
In the age of nuclear patents, you either have to have tons of money to license patents, buy companies that own patents, or successfully be granted patents.