All of the companies have hoards of overlapping patents on technology that was not innovative in the first place. They "defend" their patents in court because that's the game. All the major players do this, not just in technology. When do you think "Coal-fire steam locomotive" was patented? http://www.google.com/patents/US4425763 (1984)
About those three patents that are so similar: the first two stem from the same initial application so should be nearly identical except for the claims; the third is a reissue of the first so should be almost entirely identical. The first situation happens when you file an application but the patent office determines that there are two distinct inventions being claimed, and so want to examine the novelty of each separately. At least that's my understanding; IANAL.
How did you find these? If someone pointed you to them, I think they were trying to mislead you. If you found them, I think you're trying to mislead us :-)
Google are saying one thing and doing another. They may be right in some cases but that doesn't mean that they are playing straight.
When there was a recent review of patent law and software patents recently Google did not come out against software patents. In no way are they setting a good example in their current behaviour, the best you could say is that they are doing their best to bring the system into disrepute by their failure to stick to their FRAND commitments.
"We think that these patent wars are not helpful to consumers. They’re not helpful to the marketplace. They’re not helpful to innovation." (http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/08/21/google-exe...)
All of the companies have hoards of overlapping patents on technology that was not innovative in the first place. They "defend" their patents in court because that's the game. All the major players do this, not just in technology. When do you think "Coal-fire steam locomotive" was patented? http://www.google.com/patents/US4425763 (1984)
How about three patents for technology so similar the author couldn't be bothered to change even one word of the title or abstract? http://www.google.com/patents/US6470844 http://www.google.com/patents/US6945207 http://www.google.com/patents/USRE40286
Do you really think that Apple, who has been a notoriously slow adopter of NFC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230483070457749...) really created any new technology in this patent that they were just awarded? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...