I don't think it is fair to assume that at all. It's your opinion and I accept you've perhaps got a greater insight into these matters than most of us, but it's still an opinion.
The problem with these claims and counterclaims is that they are open to interpretation by us in the peanut gallery without actually knowing the facts & figures behind the terms being used.
The gist of it, as I see it, comes down to Apple saying Nokia's FRAND terms are unjustifiable and Nokia saying they are and if you (Apple) don't think they are, we'll ask the courts.
As I've said before, Nokia want a figure Z for their patents and Apple seemingly disagrees with Z no matter how Z is derived, be it Patents X + Money Y, or as they also seemed to have tried, 3Y = Z.
But still at the root of this, at no point have Apple said that other manufacturers are paying a smaller Z, they just disagree that Z is fair.
Back before Apple countered, analysts were suggesting that Z was calculated as a percentage of the device's price in which the patents were used. 1 or 2% maybe. I can see some merit in Apple's complaint if it's based on a percentage of a very expensive smartphone rather than it being capped at a maximum figure.
So, there's an argument for either side but trotting out 'Nokia are asking X times anyone else' seems a baseless speculation.
Back to HTC v Apple though and I think it's a different kettle of fish. Nokia's GSM patents are part of a standard and intended to be licensed. Apple's patents are software/UI patents and it's such a pity that companies are resorting to these kinds of disputes rather than licensing or just giving ideas freely.
HTC's hardware is always clunky and cheap. Android is nowhere near as polished as the iPhone. Apple had nothing to fear from them using a slide to lock UI element or scaling a CPU's power down or OO Notifications. They could have competed on merit, marketing and superior hardware. It saddens me that they're choosing not to. I'd hope the next iPhone hardware and OS 4.0 are a step back up onto the top step but the iPhone currently is looking a bit tired. If Apple don't improve it and they instead rely on litigating against their competition it'll be a sad turn of events for Apple and the phone industry as a whole.
I'm wondering if these patents are enforceable in Europe. Competitors such as Nokia could quite happily ship some pretty nifty phones outside the USA with US Apple patents being used.
As an analogy, Specialized Bicycles have a stupid patent on a pivot in a bike's rear suspension system but only in the USA - the so-called Horst Pivot patent. Essentially it's just a Macpherson Strut used in cars for decades but the US patent office gave them it. In a bike the Horst pivot location means the suspension system is fully active, even when braking and there's neutral pedal feedback. It's just the right way to do suspension, easily.
Because of the patent, other US companies have ***** footed around with less effective suspension systems or engineered workarounds like complex damping to stop pedal feedback.
In Europe, it doesn't apply, so many, mostly smaller, manufacturers took the design and produced much better bikes than Specialized. They're not allowed to sell them in the USA though.
Specialized will licence the patent but nobody likes paying them or having a Specialized logo on their bike. Everyone wants to make it look like their suspension system was designed by them and has magical qualities that you'd only get from them.
Apple won't licence their patents so my analogy breaks down a bit there but if you're following, the stupid patents have meant that innovation stagnated in the USA - the alternative designs are rarely better performers - but in Europe we've taken the idea and produced much better products than the original company that got the US patent.
I can see the same happening in the mobile phone space where the industry is less dependent on US software companies unless the US patent office is reformed.
