[pherocity_]

In my view, this isn't acceptable. You have to think that if the patents were so valuable, Microsoft would be able to leverage them and create a phone that surpasses Android because Microsoft doesn't have to pay for all those patents.

[kabdib]

What's wrong with doing both?

(I used a WinPhone for a number of years. It was a fine phone).

[snlacks]

One company spends billions researching, building consumer products, getting feedback, developing software and interfaces for over a decade.

Another company (or two, or twenty) comes along, builds off of that and spends billions on advertising...

Isn't this exactly what patents ARE for?

[DSingularity]

I'm not sure you are correct in either of your claims. I would be surprised if MS spent billions developing the Android enabling technology. I don't think they were active in Java or Linux development or mobile in the time before Android. I've played with windows CE when I was young. Nothing like modern phones.

And I highly doubt Samsung simple took MS engineering and research output, slapped a Samsung logo on it, and advertised it heavily. I doubt anybody would really think that either. Which begs the question...

[snlacks]

It's easy to act as if Google, Apple or MS came up with obvious solutions... Samsung, Google, Apple, HTC and Microsoft are very well funded and mature players. They all contribute a lot to technology, If they have a valid patent, it deserves to be protected. It's not like any of those players is sitting and not using their funds to research more. This is what these companies do. Edit: spelling.