Whether they were a rip off or not, I won't argue (I use neither Samsung, nor Apple and I don't see such style aspects to be a required matter of exclusivity). But Apple didn't hesitate to attack using trivial (which means invalid) patents like that. The end doesn't justify the means. Just because they thought they were ripped off, doesn't excuse their abuse of the broken patent system.
Next thing they can imagine they are being ripped off by some competitor, because they don't like the color of some device or what not. So why should anyone trust them not to do abuse the patent system, just because they can.
I.e. I see any such abusive company arming themselves with even more patents like a very negative development.
I guess what I’m saying is your problem seems to be a problem with the issuing of trivial patents. Calling a company abusive because they use their patents to protect their position is like calling a scorpion abusive because it stings.
No, they don't have an excuse of using that weapon, just because the system is broken enough to arm them with it. Surely, the system needs fixing. But foul actors are sill foul regardless. That's pretty self explanatory.
Next thing they can imagine they are being ripped off by some competitor, because they don't like the color of some device or what not. So why should anyone trust them not to do abuse the patent system, just because they can.
I.e. I see any such abusive company arming themselves with even more patents like a very negative development.