[joeblow9999]

Originally Posted by dr2005

You are correct insofar as a company needs to take some identifiable form of action to show they are still using the trademark - however, that need not be litigation. Had they entered into negotiation with Samsung and other such companies and come to a licensing agreement over the use of said patents (as, indeed, the judge in the U.S. case asked them to prior to closing arguments), that would also count as enforcing ownership. The fact that Apple are instead engaging in a form of "forum shopping" seeking to ban all competitor Android-based products in various jurisdictions suggests that their motive is ulterior and somewhat less salubrious - hence why, like others, I disapprove of it entirely and feel it is bordering on anti-competitive practice. Hence, I will not buy any Apple products so long as this course of action is undertaken.

ANY company having a monopoly position - irrespective of how "fun" they may appear - is a bad deal for consumers. That's why the European Commission took Microsoft to court (twice) over their dominant position with Windows (and won, incidentally), and it's why cases such as these - based on patents of somewhat spurious merit, it should be said - set a worrying precedent. Especially in light of the late Steve Jobs' self-professed "thermonuclear war" against competitors using Android - that suggests consumers' interests are frankly of no interest to Apple, and that is not a position to be advocating. As for what Apple stands to lose, I would say their reputation and sales are two good contenders.

This, 100%, all of it.

Didn't Steve Jobs say he was more than willing to spend $50 billion to defeat Google/Android? I mean sure, he was probably just bluffing...or not. He died before this question was ever answered, but something tells me that, given Jobs' extreme arrogance and egomania, it definitely would've been incredibly nasty. The market in its current state is choked by patent wars and lack of real innovation from anyone. Everyone is either tied up in lawsuits, or simply cannot compete because their competitors own all the valuable patents that start-ups cannot afford to license, in which case the patent system functions as an iron-clad barrier to entry.

In my opinion, the length and scope of most software patents and patents concerning "universal" design concepts like phones and computers, need to be severely trimmed down or even eliminated altogether. Apple in particular have become far too large and influential for anyone's good.