No, it's not irrelevant.
If we could take a step back from the players involved then you *may* be talking about a scenario like this:
Company X produces a phone that sells for $300 and uses a 10c chip from a third party supplier that implements part of the 3G standard.
That chip implements 100 patents from various companies that are included in the 3G standard, for which the chip manufacturer pays royalties to those companies.
For simplicity's sake, lets say those 100 patents are split in roughly equal measure between companies A, B and C.
Company A doesn't make phones and only asks for licenses from the chip manufacturer.
Companies B and C both make phones and so decide that whilst their licenses must also be bought by manufacturers using the chips, they will not charge each other anything (even though company C ships three times the number of phones of company B).
Now, along comes company X with their new phone. Company A charges them nothing (fair), company B charges them 0.225c per chip (could also be considered fair), company C charges them 2.25% per handset - i.e. $6.75. Is that even slightly fair or reasonable?
N.B. I'm not defending or attacking any company in particular here, just trying to illustrate the scenario; it's all very well hating a company, but don't let that stop you supporting what's right. You'd be pretty upset if you were charged double when you went shopping because you happened to earn twice the average wage.