"Here we have SAMSUNG coming along and claiming that they just made some gadgets and then advised their buyers go get an SD CARD to make it work, ( infringe upon EDIG PATENTS)....

Cute as the defense may be, it will not by pass the "Justice" of the case..."

Let me see if I understand Sammy's defense:

We sold a product, which by design, was incomplete. In order for you, the consumer, to use the features of the product we sold to you; you must go out and purchase additional technology which we did not include with the original product. (We did not include this technology as we knew we did not have a right to use said technology. This won't be shown in discovery, so don't bother asking for e-mails regarding why we should market our phones this way. No, really. Nothing to see here in this regard, keep moving. These are not the e-mails you are looking for. You are free to keep going... move along....)

However, we expected you, the uninformed consumer, to purchase a third party product which we knew whose technology was patented at the time but was not licensed by or manufactured by the true patent holder. (We knew this based on our legal DD on the patent, and why we didn't include it.)

Rather than pay for the license up front, we deflected the culpability of infringement to the third party provider and to you, the consumer, for using stolen technology.

In short, as you imply, the defense is ...the consumer is responsible for purchasing stolen technology, since consumers as a group did not do their DD before purchase, and those that manufactured/ sold the SD card are also the infringer, so Sammy is not responsible. Those who "market" the card(s) are not responsible, since we could be accused of "marketing" the card by stating you -the consumer- needs to purchase a card for the full use of our product.

Somehow, I don't think that will fly in court. Apparently, the market today thinks the same way.