I don't think that's the case. However, it doesn't often come to ugly lawsuits because most of those software patents can be licensed. For instance, Apple licensed Amazon's 1-Click Purchasing patent. If it hadn't, Amazon would've likely sued over it. [1]
This method is working out great for Microsoft, which makes more money off Android than on its own mobile endeavors.
The big problem Android makers encounter with Apple is that it has no interest in licensing its software patents to them. Apple simply does not want them using any of its ideas.
You're making it sound as if it's a good thing Microsoft makes money on stop they didn't actually build themselves.
While one might argue, "yes but those stockholders invested capital in those companies," one might reasonably counter that Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. etc. invested capital in the research to discover those patentable ideas.
Don't misunderstand me, I see some ethical merits in a Marxist economic approach.
However, "Now we see the violence inherent in the system," is hardly a convincing argument.
It was an observation, it shouldn't be interpreted as approval. Just as I'm not so sure whether Apple, Google, and the Android device makers are handling this mess the right way.
No, but only because software patents have largely been unenforced. That's changing.
Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now, what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?
If Apple has their way, the only significant mobile OS that doesn't mandate a walled garden. (Microsoft is actually better off keeping Android alive; parasites don't benefit by killing their host).