The basis of these types of IP arguments is that the competitor can take short-cuts and thus price the originator out of market or at best make a much more handsome profit because they didn't have to do the R&D or some other type of fair-play argument line. You certainly don't have to prove that harm is being done for patent violation, but the idea is that such a system exists to stop it. If there's a sniff test here, the highest-profit-margin-in-the-industry Apple isn't passing it.
Until recently Apple had no presence in the low end of the market which meant that a large proportion of the market that Samsung and other Android handset manufacturers had was in the budget sector. That part of the market is always less profitable on a per unit basis and more reliant on volume.
It is also arguably more competitive than the high end. Few Android handset manufacturers other than Samsung are making models that compare favourably with the iPhone, however down the bottom end there are loads of players (many fighting for their lives) cutting further into margins at those price points.
Interestingly Samsung, arguably the only Android manufacturer that does compete successfully at the top end is massively profitable itself.
But if Samsung and other choose to scrap it out in a low margin market, you can't really blame Apple when that strategy fails to realise the same profits and you can't really use it as any sort of justification.
They have 33% of the market including most of the high end and they design 1 new phone every 18 months or so. How much do you think R&D is going to cost them vs Samsung which comes out with a new model every month or so and has a smaller slice of the mid to low end market.
Apple has the most profits with all other companies, except the one they are suing, selling at a loss. Yes, at a loss. http://www.bgr.com/2012/04/30/apple-samsung-take-profit/
The basis of these types of IP arguments is that the competitor can take short-cuts and thus price the originator out of market or at best make a much more handsome profit because they didn't have to do the R&D or some other type of fair-play argument line. You certainly don't have to prove that harm is being done for patent violation, but the idea is that such a system exists to stop it. If there's a sniff test here, the highest-profit-margin-in-the-industry Apple isn't passing it.