Oh please, the amount that each consumer would miss out on is minuscule compared to the amount the lawyers would miss out on. And why would a judge care about lawyers--it's almost as if she was one . . . Oh wait . . .
I agree completely. Apple rarely "collaborates" its way into new territory, preferring to go its own way. They may buy a related company for people or parts, but not to buy its way in. Even the Beats buy has yet to prove otherwise. The iPod name is known and respected. A wrist version would not be seen as a risky new thing, but the next iteration of a popular product.
I have seen a few posts, including mine, that emphasized the iWatch as the evolution of the iPod Nano. Whether this is the case, or whether this is misdirection by Apple, or merely CYA patents remains to be seen. I am betting Apple is leveraging iPod--"the product that changed the world, and your life, is reborn to do it again."