From the layman free-software nerd point of view, this appears to be exactly what is happening in a number of situations. This is a way to assign a cost to your competitors who are giving away solutions for free.
1) Microsoft approaches companies using Linux. They claim they have patents that Linux infringes. Either pay Microsoft's licensing fee (Amazon) or get sued (TomTom). Now Linux isn't free. This has been going on for years, long before Android.
2) MPEG-LA looks to be considering the same path with the WebM patent-pool they are forming. I assume they will start using this same pitch on smaller companies once WebM starts being used more.
3) Both Apple and Microsoft are going after Android in this manner.
It is a brilliant strategy that exploits shortcomings of the patent system. You get paid for allowing people to use your competitors' free solutions or, at the very least, the free solutions end up having legal fees associated with them. The only downside is negative publicity among certain groups of customers.
1) Microsoft approaches companies using Linux. They claim they have patents that Linux infringes. Either pay Microsoft's licensing fee (Amazon) or get sued (TomTom). Now Linux isn't free. This has been going on for years, long before Android.
2) MPEG-LA looks to be considering the same path with the WebM patent-pool they are forming. I assume they will start using this same pitch on smaller companies once WebM starts being used more.
3) Both Apple and Microsoft are going after Android in this manner.
It is a brilliant strategy that exploits shortcomings of the patent system. You get paid for allowing people to use your competitors' free solutions or, at the very least, the free solutions end up having legal fees associated with them. The only downside is negative publicity among certain groups of customers.