EDIT: The replies of this comment say that the others (Apple etc) are too copying and copying kernel in not wrong. Well, I did not say that copying is wrong. What I mean is that copying is NOT innovation.
Also, Android didn't copy the kernel. They adopted it, modified it, and abide by the license (and have even started contributing changes upstream).
'Copy': make a similar or identical version of; reproduce: [1] Google forked and contribute to the kernel. They did not create their own identical version of, or reproduce, the kernel.
[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/copy
BTW, widgets were original to android in regards to apple, were they not?
Although it seems so now, keep in mind Google bid for these patents themselves and lost. They were also offered to join the Rockstar consortium, which they declined. Unfair definitely, but not enough to qualify as anti-competitive under a black & white banner.
> ... gives Congress the power "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).
From what I read based on what some legal experts simplified but again, "it's the Internet" but basically, they considered patents as legal rights to monopolize on such innovations.
So, based on that, exactly how is it anti-competitive to disallow other companies to use the said patents unless they agree to pay for the rights?
It's fair to ask if it's bad for there to be an official form of anti-competition, but call a spade a spade.
The argument here is that the only ones that should benefit from this are the authors and inventors, and they and only they are granted "exclusive" rights. No one else. In fact, I'd find that fair. The implication being you can't sell or transfer those rights to someone, and those rights are only granted to the authors and inventors.
Which leads us to this question:
"exactly how is it anti-competitive to disallow other companies to use the said patents unless they agree to pay for the rights?"
It's not, as long as the one doing the license is the author or inventor. One should not be able to transfer those rights to a third party, as it's explicitly an exclusive right.
Not necessarily. Companies could be paying them licensing fees because it's less costly then a protracted court battle with an unknown outcome.
(The answer is that it keeps you from being painted as a mark by other trolls. But it still doesn't change the math -- it costs more to fight than to pay.)