Perhaps their strategy is to accuse Apple of violating ALL of their patents so that they can use the legal process to determine which of their patents Apple is in fact NOT violating so they can figure out which ideas were mistakes and they can then focus on the ones that Apple is actually using.
A game of 'toss the pasta on the wall and see what sticks' is not going to win them points with the courts or the ITC when it becomes clear that that is the game.
They will possibly get things tossed for being too broad etc.
And this is before the ones that Apple gets shot down with the point that X was based of their own patent A and so on
While this is true, I'm more and more thinking it should be the other way. That companies should have to speak up during a limited time (say 2 years) once another company potentially infringes or it will be deemed as 'you don't care about it' and is allowed to continue as they were. Or at the least, reduce the amount of damages. So like if you let someone clearly go for 5+ years infringing on your patent you should only be allowed actual damages for licensing fees not received (at a fair rate) and no additional damages 'just cause'
Not to mention the dumping of all 'only an idea' patents out of the books. Sorry but they never should have been allowed. Or say allow someone to patent an idea but for a short time. If during that time they can develop the tech then they get a full patent on it. So like 3 years for a mere idea, 20 for their actual tech. But after that 3 years, the idea is in the open. Anyone can try to develop a different tech for the same notion.
And as much as I hate to say it, I think we need more 3rd party oversight on patent uses and licensing. It could be as simple as forcing companies to publish licensing rates to insure that all companies are being asked for the same amount. This was the crux of Apple's issues. They claim that Nokia tried to ask for way more than they do from any other company. Even double dipping on patents they jointly own that Apple licensed from the collective. Perhaps something like requiring copies of all licensing deals be filled with the ITC when signed to be opened and reviewed during any disputes (along with appropriate other deal papers depending on the nature of the complaint) would be enough. Perhaps also requiring some kind of usage notes fillings to show linkage between patents and later art wouldn't be out of order. Say Apple has a patent on their 'dock' in Mac OS (very likely) and decides to use it in iOS where it appears as the 'multi task bar'. Depending on the system it could be a use note on the original patent or a second patent where it clearly states that they are expanding their own 'prior art' in Patent XYZ as a basis for this new patent. Paper trail created as they go instead of trying to show it later where folks will try to twist things around to suit their needs. And so on