Seriously, guys?
You're overlooking the main point here: Google doesn't really care that it has lost out on the patents -- it cares that Microsoft and Apple are now patent-trolling, hand-in-hand, and purporting to raise end-cost of adoption if consumers choose not to buy Apple products (iOS-based hardware, e.g. iPhone, iPod, iPad) or Microsoft products (Windows Mobile).
Not only is this like Apple/Microsoft saying, "Don't want our stuff? Here, go get yourself your Android machine at $[x] premium more, because they're using our patents", when those patents were bought, and not developed, by Apple or Microsoft.
Apple/Microsoft paid some $4.5B for the patents, right? And is asking $15 per device for a license? We'll assume they actually end up getting $15 per device, not the more likely significantly smaller number the teams will end up agreeing on.
The up-front cost meets licensing costs only when 300 Million devices have been sold (by Apple or by Microsoft or by Google). At that point, Apple/Microsoft start getting a "discount" on the licensing. By my count, we're pretty darned close to that number already.
Were the actual number is something more like $2 per device, Apple/Microsoft/et al "break even" only when 2.25 Billion devices have been sold. That's a bit of a stretch, given the population of the world, so I'd guess the ultimate licensing cost will be a little higher, in the $5-10 range.
All of this, of course, is driven by the "market value" of that set of patents. Apple/Microsoft can't charge $2 per device unless they expect devices using that patent will be hyper-ubiaquitous by the end of the patent lifespan. So, why was the cost $4.5B?
Oh yeah, it was driven that high by bidding. Google was the main party on the other side of that bidding.
So, let's imagine an alternate world where Google's 3.14159 Billion offer had stood unchallenged. How much would Google be asking for licensing costs? I'd guess they'd be starting off at at least $10 per device, and might end up settling for $5 each.
Not a very striking difference, when we're talking about $300-$1,000 devices, is it?
Patents, when enforced by the original developer for his own protection, fit its original purpose; but when patents are enforced by its subsequent purchasers who benefit little from the innovation itself, and who use it only to prevent others to get to the same stage, that's just mean, and meant to stifle innovation for your own commercial good. All's fair in business, they say, but that doesn't mean Apple and Microsoft can't be unethical in doing what they do, especially when they're hurting consumers while they're at it.
Patents by their very nature are intended to raise the cost of entry into a market. That is expressly why they exist.
If Apple had bought this patent and then turned around and said, "No, no one can license it. Tough cookies!" that would be ruthless. As it is, they are paying up-front for the cost of the patent in hopes of recouping that cost over the lifetime of the patent in licensing fees. Such a gambit is far from assured, of course. Given that they are USERS of the patents in question as well as holders of the patents themselves, I see nothing even remotely ethically questionable here.
Again: Google wanted to be in the exact same situation. There is no indication that they would have turned around and licensed the patents for free, just perhaps for less cost. Since that didn't happen, it is also entirely possible Google would have turned around and required punitive licensing costs to drive Apple/Microsoft out of the phone business altogether (which likely would have instigated business-practice investigations in the US at least, but still ...).
