They pledged to license certain patents in Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms, when they contributed them to Telecom & H.264 patent pools; but now they are not very keen on keeping their commitment.
Although i do want to emphasize that only offensive parties are being hit with the frand patents. I really do think thats the most relevant moral ground here.
[1]http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/02/apple-faces-double-wham...
Is Google/Motorola suing any party that has not first sued them or any of their partners for doing bussiness with Google?
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/apple-is-also-suing-motor...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/08/proof-apple-attacked-moto...
Motorola filed the first suit.
Even in the article you have linked, the author says "...why my position is that Apple attacked Motorola even though Motorola technically won the race to the courthouse". Irrespective of what the author thinks went in the background, he admits Motorola filed the suit first.
Your own link states several times that Motorola was trying to pre-empt the attack and that Apple's attack was 'long awaited'. Do you really think Apple was not the patent aggressor in this case?
Why could it not be the other way around? Maybe Apple was preparing in secret, fearing a law suit by Motorola. That is equally plausible.
As an aside, Samsung's slavish cargo cult aping of Apple designs is unnecessary. They could come up with non look alike packaging or connectors, for example, but they are deliberately imitating down to the last detail, even in their TV commercials. This across the board play signals an intent, and may be influencing judges as much as the arguments. Could be why the coin flip court cases seem more often than not to land Apple's way.
Microsoft strategy is more interesting: they dont block products but rather use liscense fees that are slightly less than the costs of going to court against Microsoft. Eventhough, their patents are hard to enforce, and likely wouldnt win, its irrelevant.
So, to compare the behavior to other industries: Microsofts strategy is racketeering Italian mob style "we own this town", while Apple is raging a full on war, with any competitor, much like how a mexican drug cartel operates.
Google on the other hand, behaves more like a community bank. The members get free tech, but also take most of the risk, yet if they succeed, end up making Google more profitable.
The notion that all three companies are equally abusive, is ridiculus. They are definately operating with different policies. Whether that is due to convience or moral convinctions, is up for debate, but when looking purely at behavior in this space, Google is the good guy...