I don't see it that way at all, sorry. Both have the effect of eliminating valid competition from the market. Both are bad. Condemning one and not the other makes you, personally, part of the problem and not the solution, because you're fighting only on one side. Your utopia, apparently, has Apple squeezing everyone else from the market. You'll forgive me if I question the moral basis for your argument.
One way might be ethically bad, but the other puts the squeeze on everyone. What Google is involved in here is unquestionalby worse than what Apple is doing (attacking one company for a perceived copy job).
I think the issue is that you're an Apple hater/Android Fanboy and you're letting this clod your logic.
Getting kicked in the shin by a stranger is bad, as is getting shot point blank in the belly by a sawed off shotgun. Two things being bad doesn't mean one isn't worse.
No. Just no. Google (really Samsung, but whatever -- let's leave Google as the proxy here for simplicity) isn't squeezing "everyone." They're squeezing exactly one party, who happens to have already sued them. This is a defensive move in a larger battle, and viewing it as one-sided while cheering for an at-best-equally-at-fault party is just perpetuating the absurd status quo. Either you think patents suits are bad, or you are part of the problem.
Nonsense. If Samsung gets away with this it will have implicates for all agreements of this kind. Your hate for Apple is completely clogging your logic here.
What implications will it have, exactly? Let's just say what you seem to be implying: that FRAND agreements are worthless once you sue someone. Is that so bad? The patent covenants in the open source world almost always include this kind of term already.
So explain to me why the world will fall apart if everyone gets to ignore FRAND terms when used against parties that are already suing them over patent licenses? That sounds like a good thing to me.
