>To many device makers, Android is a nightmare as far as patent litigation (now 37 Android-related lawsuits) is concerned.
Citation needed. I doubt it's pleasant for those device makers, but without proper citation it's hard to know whether they consider it "a nightmare" or an expected annoyance, business as usual.
>Of course, intellectual property issues are only one part of the consideration.
You mean software patent issues here, right ?
>Up to a certain point they may just look at a seemingly free and open
but "Its not like Androids free.", right ? Who was it again that said that ? Looked a little like Gene Simmons, but shinier.
>(in reality, neither free nor fully open)
Now can you substantiate that *without* referring to a certain blog ?
>offering as an attractive choice, especially as long as consumers like it.
and maybe it will remain so, because it is, in fact, very popular. So even after paying all these potential patent taxes, device manufacturers would still come out ahead. So until the dust settles and the true extent of this economic burden of software patents is known, it's no use trying to disuade manufacturers not to use android and implicitly to opt for a "safer" competitor (which is the elephant in the room in your argument).
>But if the 37 Android-related suits that have already been filed have to be settled, plus the many more that will likely be filed this year,
then they might still get the better deal.
>it's hard to see how Android will be economically far less attractive because of the need to dole out $5 to patent holder A, $10 to B, $15 to C, $12 to D, etc.
Not hard at all. Trolls, like parasites, want their host to be popular and widespread. Killing it off by leeching too much is bad business.
Maybe you're right after all, and android is just not "safe". But there are a lot of 'ifs' in your scenario I'm not willing to take at face value.