I don't agree with the claim that only Samsung is the one copying in this dispute. There is definitely traits of derivative designs from Samsung. So for laymen like us, it would appear that Samsung is on the wrong, but there may be a whole host of actual hardware infringements Apple might actually be engaged. No one other than selective few in the industry will know how much copying and infringement of patents have been going on. But if you were to ask me, both sides are probably both guilty.
Apple apparently infringed on Nokia's IP which is why they wrote Nokia a multi-billion dollar check plus future royalties.
People love to paint Apple as the big bad patent bully but they have paid more in patent settlements then all these other companies put together. Apparently they're allowed to violate but Android gets a free pass because, you know, "open".
this is Google's actual legal reasoning as to why they shouldn't be held liable for contributory patent infringement in Oracle v. Google:
"[S]ection 271(c) applies only to offers for sale, sales, and importation, but Google does not sell, offer to sell, or import Android or Android SDK. [...] The ordinary meaning of 'sale' requires transfer of ownership for a price. [...] Android and Android SDK are offered free of charge to anyone who wishes to download them off the Internet, however, and there is no evidence that Google ever receives any consideration in return. That undisputed fact precludes a finding of contributory infringement."
That is just one element of a many-faceted approach to defending Android. It is misleading to suggest that making the observation that Google does not sell Android is equivalent to admitting that there is no better argument available. AFAIK (IANAL), you aren't usually allowed to raise new arguments later on in a trial (which bothers me), so both sides will raise every issue and argument they can think of at the beginning.
Google is undercutting Microsoft, Apple, and RIM because they are releasing for free what everyone else HAS to charge for because they don't have income from advertisements to support the R&D required.
