You file the counterclaim that is provided for in the DMCA, indicating that to the best of your knowledge you are not infringing copyright. The ISP must then put the content back up If the copyright holder still wants to pursue the matter, it is up to them to take it to court.
Nevertheless, at THAT moment the legal exposure and costs become quite real. What we need is a private consortium of fair use defenders to fund these counterclaims, or something like it, to even the scales of power.
Here's a good conspiracy theory: Are they really paying money, or did MS say "Hey, if you "pay" this licensing fee for Android, we'll return it to you as credits on Windows Mobile licensing fees".
So Microsoft gets to spread FUD and tell everyone "Hey, these other guys paid up, so should you", while the companies may not be paying anything.
Since MS tried to require an NDA and confidentiality just to disclose the patents (which are already in the public domain), I wouldn't be surprised to find that they had some backroom deal to reward companies for paying for Anrdroid.
This is what I've been thinking from very early on.
"The major manufacturers would have only come to terms with Microsoft if they came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win."
I disagree. The terms of these agreements are never disclosed. I think instead of confining your analysis to just the results of a potential court battle, you need to consider what else might be thrown into the mix. It could just as well be that Microsoft is offering more than just indemnity for the licensing money. It could be a sweet offer we know nothing of, which allows Microsoft to continue to get press about the "cost" of using the Android OS.
Your abusive attitude negates any valid points you may have made.
It detracts from the civility of the conversation and raises defensiveness, but it doesn't negate the validity of the argument
"It's pick and choose, and morally bankrupt."
It's only morally bankrupt if the one doing the picking and choosing is thus. Using the Bible to create a personal mythos can be a fundamentally rational process, guided by a set of moral presuppositions, that leads to something beyond the rational. I have never met nor never read anyone who was able to create their system of values wholesale out of purely rational cloth (Certainly many tried, thinking of Kant). That's not a human failure, or a failure of reason itself, it's just reality. Myth and story are important to everyone. Fundamentalists of all stripes simply want to be reductionistic regarding their chosen "story". I have been greatly moved by elements from all the world's great religions and many of those considered to be less important. Likewise, I've been inspired by scientists who have been able to take the leaps of faith necessary to construct a fleshed out ethic, informed by both science and human values. Beyond all that, I believe that it is possible to bring values under the umbrella of science, but that won't happen when we are at war with each other and insist on embracing the variety of fundamentalism embraced on our chosen side of the battlefield. When it does, it will be because we will recognize that all of our so called knowledge is provisional, waiting to be informed by the journey we are taking into the future.
This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.