Benefits vs risks
That raises the broader question of whether vendors should even consider doing business with oppressive governments in the first place. And NSN's response raises another fair point - the benefits of widespread telecommunications in such markets (not just economic growth and productivity, but also enabling more people to communicate more freely with each other and with the outside world) arguably outweigh the risk of abuse.
Ironically, the 2009 election in Iran is an interesting example of the latter. One of the major stories from that election was the "Twitter Revolution", and how the results, the protests and subsequent crackdowns were reported nationwide and worldwide via mobile phones using Twitter, Facebook and SMS despite government censorship of local media and foreign media being ordered to stay in their hotels and offices.
Roughly 60% of Iranians have a mobile phone (compared to 10% five years ago) - that makes it harder than ever logistically for the government to use telecom to keep its people on-message with official dogma and spy on every single person who doesn't like president Ahmadinejad.
Not that they don't try. That's why, sadly, the empowering benefits of higher telecom availability don't prevent things like what happened to Saharkhiz and many, many others. Which brings us back to the thorny issue of whether the benefits outweigh the potential for abuse, and whether technology suppliers can be legally liable as accessories and/or enablers.
In any case, it's a safe bet that the issue will get even thornier if the NSN case goes ahead, and NSN loses. If NSN can be held responsible for Iran using its equipment to jail and torture people, then so can any vendor that has supplied gear with similar capabilities in other markets.