People should really do some research before saying things.
emblaze is not a "small fry".
They are listed on the London stock exchange and are trading around 44 GBP. They have 600 million in assets (sic) and revenue around 400 million. This is a large multinational corporation, not some guy in his garage.
Yea they are big enough to start a suit, but they don't have billions in the bank laying around like Microsoft and Apple do to keep it going nearly forever. So my guess is they will settle somewhere along the line that's profitable for them.
Why people hate lawyers is the fact that they have the uncanny ability to keep making arguments and causing action and distress that it wears the other side down. A war of intellectual attrition basically.
The courts like it because they make money, the loser of a jury likes it because they have nothing better to do in their lives to make money, the lawyers love it as it makes them tons of money, the trickle down jobs like court reporters, bailiffs, investigators, researchers and so on and so on.
Mind you, I love Mac, I have several, and I run an all Mac lab.
However, whenever the issue of patents come up, I am always amazed at the complete double standard people have.
When Apple is sued, it is because of "patent trolls" seeking to immorally profit from Apple's success.
When Apple sues someone for patent infringement, it is "way to go" for protecting their IP from leeches trying to profit from all of Apple's hard work.
Emblaze cannot, by any reasonable person, be considered a patent troll. As I said in my previous post this is a large multinational corporation. If size is really the determinant in who can bring a suit, then essentially people are saying that no one can sue Apple or Microsoft, or Google, because few companies are larger.
one poster here said did "neat" software in the past, which suggests that they may actually have a claim against Apple.
People talk about how bad the patent system is, and that you should not be able to patent the obvious. Well, if it was so obvious, then why didn't Apple patent it back then. Simple fact is, things are generally only obvious in hindsight.
Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.
Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.
Well hopefully the patent was also granted in other countries to eliminate any possible illegal government behavior.
Actually he bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) and remained it Disk Operating System (DOS) or MS-DOS later on.
Yes they did and Apple sued Microsoft and lost.
Yes, and that's why Bill Gates dissed the iPad, because he's not a innovator, just a copy machine.
I think that Apple did not have the claim for windows as Xerox was the inventor. SJ was at Xerox to look at their printer technology when he stumbled onto something Xerox was working on--something to do with a graphics interface and a mouse. The rest is history.
If memory serves me right, there were two lawsuits between MS and Apple. Apple won the first and the second was a tie. Xerox entered the second suit but the ruling was that Xerox's claim to windows should have been made when Apple came out with LISA or the Mac 128 and they were barred from the claim since they waived it by not filing when Apple first sued MS. The second suit allowed MS to continue Widows--if they lost we would not be having the Mac-Windows wars.
Well hopefully the patent was also granted in other countries to eliminate any possible illegal government behavior.
We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?
I think that Apple did not have the claim for windows as Xerox was the inventor. SJ was at Xerox to look at their printer technology when he stumbled onto something Xerox was working on--something to do with a graphics interface and a mouse. The rest is history.
If memory serves me right, there were two lawsuits between MS and Apple. Apple won the first and the second was a tie. Xerox entered the second suit but the ruling was that Xerox's claim to windows should have been made when Apple came out with LISA or the Mac 128 and they were barred from the claim since they waived it by not filing when Apple first sued MS. The second suit allowed MS to continue Windows (sic)--if they lost we would not be having the Mac-Windows wars.
I thought Apple licensed or bought rights to use the Xerox GUI?
We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?
Not going there, it's way off topic and a political minefield.
Perhaps your grievance is better served with a post in the political forum, somewhere else.
Most trolls know a bit of history, as part of settling the lawsuit microsoft invested 400mm dollars in apple, they received non-voting stock and some patent usage. This also helped microsoft fend off anti-trust / monopoly suits brought by the government, by making sure apple was still in business.
No you didn't. You expressed your opinion as a fact.
Well it's obvious that with 47 patent infringements that Apple has been using others patents without permission or compensation. I went ahead and explained my reasoning why I thought that is.
No need to go all fanboy rabid on me.
Quote:
Again, you stated an opinion as a fact. MS and Apple will most likely join forces in this case because if one was found guilty then the other will either have to settle (pay fees) or face the same result. It is best for both to join forces.
Since they are co-defendants and Microsoft has deeper pockets, yes it makes perfect sense for Apple to coordinate a defense against this suit, and it was only a suggestion if you re-read the post again. Notice the word "if" like "if Apple could combine this suit with Microsoft..."
Quote:
Not true. As said before, MS was found guilty in two cases last year.
If you want to prove your point I suggest you back it up with facts like telling us which patent lawsuits Apple lost compared to MS.
Uh, the last two years is not reflective of Microsoft's entire lawsuit history and Apple has settled a lot more before trial than Microsoft ever has.
As for research, you have to do that yourself. Enjoy.
The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.
Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?
Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.
Nice guys. Several rounds of snarkiness for the room on me. However among the rest of us actually interested in discussing the article...
Not all companies are in fact patent trolls per se, some believe that their IP is pre-existing under patent and are defending what they believe to be their property. Most major corporations keep on payroll special legal staff whose job it is to do patent review for products in development and assess the merit of the existing IP and whether it could be actionable. The suits are brought so that the court can be presented the facts in the case and made a judgement, the company then rolls out its findings on the IP property in question and demonstrates why it is not infringing. There are millions of patents out there and patent analysis is both time consuming and problematic. In some cases, the description is not reflective of the underlying IP and parsing the text is even more time consuming. However there are also legal firms that operate as alternately patent trolls or patent farms where they go out research and purchase at very low cost, patented technologies which bear similarity to existing technologies and file suit to capitalize their operations. These are the ones that add significantly to operating overhead for other companies, being parasitic in nature. Companies like Microsoft and Apple have whole legal teams devoted to defending IP challenges, and depend heavily on their own IP research teams to position them correctly.
Since Trip is already largely anti-corporate, and loves to nay-say Apple in general, his points are not completely off the mark, just grossly inaccurate. Both Microsoft and Apple have very heavy capitalization and for the intents of this article and to Trip's point the difference is negligible - what's a few billion here or there between corporations the size of Apple or Microsoft? But the costs of defending or conversely suing over IP are spread widely in the marketplace and therefore do not contribute significant amounts to individual pricing of devices. Especially where the product line is fairly diverse or highly capitalized.
iGenius and Seafox - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if we removed everyone who expressed silly, unenlightened, snarky or deliberately provocative comments, this would be a boring place indeed. Make sure you are typing with your pinkies extended properly by the way...
Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.
Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.
What does it matter? Patents are not universal. You can be granted a patent in the US and Japan, but not China. You're supposed to file patents in the multiple of countries where your company operates anyway. Thats called Jurisdiction. This is a US suit, since Apple and Microsoft and infringing technology are here in the US.
There is an agreement where you file in the inventing country first with intention to file in other countries later.
Big whoop, Apple are a high profile company, due to this it makes news when someone sues them for patent infringement. Like most other large companies they always have many many law suits ongoing and most end up being thrown out.
The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.
Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?
Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.
Because the patent system is in fact broken and not relevant to current technologies and current concepts of actual and virtual intellectual property. I personally have owned and released several copyrights over the years, and while I personally don't hold any patents, I have scientist and engineering friends who do. Actually, the reason that Apple is giving a "slack pass" as you so quaintly put it, is perhaps because this site is titled APPLE INSIDER, and not [name your company here] INSIDER. So your assumption that they are the aggrieving party is equally invalid. What you seem to be suggesting are statements along these lines: "well, either Apple or Emblaze are in the wrong here" (sound of crickets chirping) from everyone. If this distresses you as much as it seems to, you might be better deserved by going to some other site that is not so closely aligned with any given interest and is coasting along on fluffy clouds of happiness and joy, diversity, equality, equanimity and somnambulence.
The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.
Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?
Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.
That's what I was trying to explain, that Apple may have no other choice but to infringe on 47 patents and deal with the consequences later.
It all comes down to who has the money, time and effort to enforce their patents because the government(s) are certainly not enforcing anything for free, just acting like a paid referee.
Say if Apple comes up with a new device, does some patent research and finds it infringes on Microsoft's, Adobe's and some poor tiny company in Satoma respective patents.
I suspect how Apple handles each infringement depends upon how much it's going to cost, who is it going to benefit or risk Apple later on with.
1: For Microsoft, Apple might find a work around to the infringement as not to tell Microsoft of the new product or have to pay them money. If Apple infringes, Microsoft will be a hard fight in court as they have deep pockets and lots of experience.
2: For Adobe, Apple may approach them and work out a deal, as they work together (usually)
3: For the poor tiny company in Satoma: If Apple goes to them to make a license deal, they will want money, which would only make them more powerful and want to sue later when they renegotiate the terms of the license for even more money. So the best bet is to give them no money, no money means no fight later for more money.
Some companies like Nokia, who's technology is unavoidable, simply want too much and use patent trading to destroy the competition, much like Microsoft nearly copies everything Apple does.
It's corporate warfare, plain and simple. Companies and people with the biggest and deepest pockets usually win, even if they are wrong. Because courts, lawyers, researchers, investigators, mindfsck experts etc. cost plenty of money. If one side can't afford the best, they are beaten before they even start.
So Apple might have no choice but to take the risk and infringe, suffer the courts and the suits but come out making a profit anyway, perhaps being able to change things for the better in the meanwhile.
Because the patent system is in fact broken and not relevant to current technologies and current concepts of actual and virtual intellectual property. I personally have owned and released several copyrights over the years, and while I personally don't hold any patents, I have scientist and engineering friends who do. Actually, the reason that Apple is giving a "slack pass" as you so quaintly put it, is perhaps because this site is titled APPLE INSIDER, and not [name your company here] INSIDER. So your assumption that they are the aggrieving party is equally invalid. What you seem to be suggesting are statements along these lines: "well, either Apple or Emblaze are in the wrong here" (sound of crickets chirping) from everyone. If this distresses you as much as it seems to, you might be better deserved by going to some other site that is not so closely aligned with any given interest and is coasting along on fluffy clouds of happiness and joy, diversity, equality, equanimity and somnambulence.
A couple of points. First, you are correct that the site is called APPLE INSIDER, not APPLE FANBOY BELIEVE EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT APPLE SITE. The site, IMHO, is about the rational discussion of issue, not a Apple Kool-Aid site.
I am not suggesting anything along the lines you state. I do not assume that one or the other part is "right", I am simply saying that quite a few posts ASSUME that Apple is right and Emblaze is a patent troll, without having read the complaint or the patent. Neither have I, but I do believe that the case will be decided on the "merits" and not some blind faith that Apple is always right.
How is the patent system broken and irrelevant. Simply stating it without offering evidence is pointless. Given the information presented here, the system seems to be working (Emblaze has patent, thinks Apple infringed, and Emblaze files suit). The only way the system is "broken" is if one thinks Apple is always innocent. And yes, I have had god knows how many copyrights, and worked in a couple of research groups where patents were considered.
Comments
People should really do some research before saying things.
emblaze is not a "small fry".
They are listed on the London stock exchange and are trading around 44 GBP. They have 600 million in assets (sic) and revenue around 400 million. This is a large multinational corporation, not some guy in his garage.
Yea they are big enough to start a suit, but they don't have billions in the bank laying around like Microsoft and Apple do to keep it going nearly forever. So my guess is they will settle somewhere along the line that's profitable for them.
Why people hate lawyers is the fact that they have the uncanny ability to keep making arguments and causing action and distress that it wears the other side down. A war of intellectual attrition basically.
The courts like it because they make money, the loser of a jury likes it because they have nothing better to do in their lives to make money, the lawyers love it as it makes them tons of money, the trickle down jobs like court reporters, bailiffs, investigators, researchers and so on and so on.
Another flame-post by Quadra 610.
He should be banned. He is disruptive.
How about the big one, Bill Gates intentionally stole DOS & re-labled it MS-DOS.
Actually he bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) and remained it Disk Operating System (DOS) or MS-DOS later on.
He also stole the UI design that became part of Windows.
Yes they did and Apple sued Microsoft and lost.
Come to think of it, M$ was pretty much founded on theft of intellectual property.
Yes, and that's why Bill Gates dissed the iPad, because he's not a innovator, just a copy machine.
However, whenever the issue of patents come up, I am always amazed at the complete double standard people have.
When Apple is sued, it is because of "patent trolls" seeking to immorally profit from Apple's success.
When Apple sues someone for patent infringement, it is "way to go" for protecting their IP from leeches trying to profit from all of Apple's hard work.
Emblaze cannot, by any reasonable person, be considered a patent troll. As I said in my previous post this is a large multinational corporation. If size is really the determinant in who can bring a suit, then essentially people are saying that no one can sue Apple or Microsoft, or Google, because few companies are larger.
one poster here said did "neat" software in the past, which suggests that they may actually have a claim against Apple.
People talk about how bad the patent system is, and that you should not be able to patent the obvious. Well, if it was so obvious, then why didn't Apple patent it back then. Simple fact is, things are generally only obvious in hindsight.
Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.
Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.
Well hopefully the patent was also granted in other countries to eliminate any possible illegal government behavior.
Actually he bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) and remained it Disk Operating System (DOS) or MS-DOS later on.
Yes they did and Apple sued Microsoft and lost.
Yes, and that's why Bill Gates dissed the iPad, because he's not a innovator, just a copy machine.
I think that Apple did not have the claim for windows as Xerox was the inventor. SJ was at Xerox to look at their printer technology when he stumbled onto something Xerox was working on--something to do with a graphics interface and a mouse. The rest is history.
If memory serves me right, there were two lawsuits between MS and Apple. Apple won the first and the second was a tie. Xerox entered the second suit but the ruling was that Xerox's claim to windows should have been made when Apple came out with LISA or the Mac 128 and they were barred from the claim since they waived it by not filing when Apple first sued MS. The second suit allowed MS to continue Widows--if they lost we would not be having the Mac-Windows wars.
Well hopefully the patent was also granted in other countries to eliminate any possible illegal government behavior.
We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?
I think that Apple did not have the claim for windows as Xerox was the inventor. SJ was at Xerox to look at their printer technology when he stumbled onto something Xerox was working on--something to do with a graphics interface and a mouse. The rest is history.
If memory serves me right, there were two lawsuits between MS and Apple. Apple won the first and the second was a tie. Xerox entered the second suit but the ruling was that Xerox's claim to windows should have been made when Apple came out with LISA or the Mac 128 and they were barred from the claim since they waived it by not filing when Apple first sued MS. The second suit allowed MS to continue Windows (sic)--if they lost we would not be having the Mac-Windows wars.
I thought Apple licensed or bought rights to use the Xerox GUI?
Guess we both need to brush up on our history.
We lend a helping hand in protecting Israel from Iran and Iraq and Serbia, we give them resources and money to help them live on a country surrounded by people who have nothing but ill will for their existence. From the statement of this patent stolen by apple and microsoft is just the same as the Israelis stealing land from Iraq and making it their own. So basically they steal land and then have the nerve to after America protects them to say two major American companies stole our funded technology? Hypocrites much?
Not going there, it's way off topic and a political minefield.
Perhaps your grievance is better served with a post in the political forum, somewhere else.
Not going there, it's way off topic and a political minefield.
Perhaps your grievance is better served with a post in the political forum, somewhere else.
If you read the previous posts of others about our military funding of their technology then yea I was just carrying it on.
Sorry.
But yea our patent laws need to be changed.
Yes they did and Apple sued Microsoft and lost.
Most trolls know a bit of history, as part of settling the lawsuit microsoft invested 400mm dollars in apple, they received non-voting stock and some patent usage. This also helped microsoft fend off anti-trust / monopoly suits brought by the government, by making sure apple was still in business.
At least know what you are talking about. Cripes
No you didn't. You expressed your opinion as a fact.
Well it's obvious that with 47 patent infringements that Apple has been using others patents without permission or compensation. I went ahead and explained my reasoning why I thought that is.
No need to go all fanboy rabid on me.
Again, you stated an opinion as a fact. MS and Apple will most likely join forces in this case because if one was found guilty then the other will either have to settle (pay fees) or face the same result. It is best for both to join forces.
Since they are co-defendants and Microsoft has deeper pockets, yes it makes perfect sense for Apple to coordinate a defense against this suit, and it was only a suggestion if you re-read the post again. Notice the word "if" like "if Apple could combine this suit with Microsoft..."
Not true. As said before, MS was found guilty in two cases last year.
If you want to prove your point I suggest you back it up with facts like telling us which patent lawsuits Apple lost compared to MS.
Uh, the last two years is not reflective of Microsoft's entire lawsuit history and Apple has settled a lot more before trial than Microsoft ever has.
As for research, you have to do that yourself. Enjoy.
The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.
Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?
Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.
They then extended the concept beyond the scope of Xerox PARC.
The engineers at PARC wanted Xerox to push their ideas forward and for Xerox to lead the personal computing revolution.
Xerox was not interested in that aim.
Not all companies are in fact patent trolls per se, some believe that their IP is pre-existing under patent and are defending what they believe to be their property. Most major corporations keep on payroll special legal staff whose job it is to do patent review for products in development and assess the merit of the existing IP and whether it could be actionable. The suits are brought so that the court can be presented the facts in the case and made a judgement, the company then rolls out its findings on the IP property in question and demonstrates why it is not infringing. There are millions of patents out there and patent analysis is both time consuming and problematic. In some cases, the description is not reflective of the underlying IP and parsing the text is even more time consuming. However there are also legal firms that operate as alternately patent trolls or patent farms where they go out research and purchase at very low cost, patented technologies which bear similarity to existing technologies and file suit to capitalize their operations. These are the ones that add significantly to operating overhead for other companies, being parasitic in nature. Companies like Microsoft and Apple have whole legal teams devoted to defending IP challenges, and depend heavily on their own IP research teams to position them correctly.
Since Trip is already largely anti-corporate, and loves to nay-say Apple in general, his points are not completely off the mark, just grossly inaccurate. Both Microsoft and Apple have very heavy capitalization and for the intents of this article and to Trip's point the difference is negligible - what's a few billion here or there between corporations the size of Apple or Microsoft? But the costs of defending or conversely suing over IP are spread widely in the marketplace and therefore do not contribute significant amounts to individual pricing of devices. Especially where the product line is fairly diverse or highly capitalized.
iGenius and Seafox - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if we removed everyone who expressed silly, unenlightened, snarky or deliberately provocative comments, this would be a boring place indeed. Make sure you are typing with your pinkies extended properly by the way...
Another 'junk' lawsuit brought by a 'patent troll'. In order for a company to defend a patent, they a) have to prove they were granted the patent and b) that the defendant's technology knowingly infringes in said patent.
Being an Israeli company it would be interesting to know if the patent was filed/granted in the US or Israel.
What does it matter? Patents are not universal. You can be granted a patent in the US and Japan, but not China. You're supposed to file patents in the multiple of countries where your company operates anyway. Thats called Jurisdiction. This is a US suit, since Apple and Microsoft and infringing technology are here in the US.
There is an agreement where you file in the inventing country first with intention to file in other countries later.
Why do our patent laws need to be changed?
The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.
Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?
Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.
Because the patent system is in fact broken and not relevant to current technologies and current concepts of actual and virtual intellectual property. I personally have owned and released several copyrights over the years, and while I personally don't hold any patents, I have scientist and engineering friends who do. Actually, the reason that Apple is giving a "slack pass" as you so quaintly put it, is perhaps because this site is titled APPLE INSIDER, and not [name your company here] INSIDER. So your assumption that they are the aggrieving party is equally invalid. What you seem to be suggesting are statements along these lines: "well, either Apple or Emblaze are in the wrong here" (sound of crickets chirping) from everyone. If this distresses you as much as it seems to, you might be better deserved by going to some other site that is not so closely aligned with any given interest and is coasting along on fluffy clouds of happiness and joy, diversity, equality, equanimity and somnambulence.
Why do our patent laws need to be changed?
The patent system is designed to protect someone's work and innovation from being ripped off for someone else's profit. There is a social contract here that benefits everyone. The inventor places the patent in the public domain for everyone's benefit, and in return they are compensated for their work at a fair and reasonable rate.
Let me ask, who here on the forum has EVER tried to get a patent, or heck, even a copyright?
Why does everyone assume that Apple is the aggrieved party here? Why is Apple automatically given the slack pass? For all anyone knows, Apple DID infringe on the patent, and they figured they could get away with it, or that it would be cheaper to go this route, than another.
That's what I was trying to explain, that Apple may have no other choice but to infringe on 47 patents and deal with the consequences later.
It all comes down to who has the money, time and effort to enforce their patents because the government(s) are certainly not enforcing anything for free, just acting like a paid referee.
Say if Apple comes up with a new device, does some patent research and finds it infringes on Microsoft's, Adobe's and some poor tiny company in Satoma respective patents.
I suspect how Apple handles each infringement depends upon how much it's going to cost, who is it going to benefit or risk Apple later on with.
1: For Microsoft, Apple might find a work around to the infringement as not to tell Microsoft of the new product or have to pay them money. If Apple infringes, Microsoft will be a hard fight in court as they have deep pockets and lots of experience.
2: For Adobe, Apple may approach them and work out a deal, as they work together (usually)
3: For the poor tiny company in Satoma: If Apple goes to them to make a license deal, they will want money, which would only make them more powerful and want to sue later when they renegotiate the terms of the license for even more money. So the best bet is to give them no money, no money means no fight later for more money.
Some companies like Nokia, who's technology is unavoidable, simply want too much and use patent trading to destroy the competition, much like Microsoft nearly copies everything Apple does.
It's corporate warfare, plain and simple. Companies and people with the biggest and deepest pockets usually win, even if they are wrong. Because courts, lawyers, researchers, investigators, mindfsck experts etc. cost plenty of money. If one side can't afford the best, they are beaten before they even start.
So Apple might have no choice but to take the risk and infringe, suffer the courts and the suits but come out making a profit anyway, perhaps being able to change things for the better in the meanwhile.
Because the patent system is in fact broken and not relevant to current technologies and current concepts of actual and virtual intellectual property. I personally have owned and released several copyrights over the years, and while I personally don't hold any patents, I have scientist and engineering friends who do. Actually, the reason that Apple is giving a "slack pass" as you so quaintly put it, is perhaps because this site is titled APPLE INSIDER, and not [name your company here] INSIDER. So your assumption that they are the aggrieving party is equally invalid. What you seem to be suggesting are statements along these lines: "well, either Apple or Emblaze are in the wrong here" (sound of crickets chirping) from everyone. If this distresses you as much as it seems to, you might be better deserved by going to some other site that is not so closely aligned with any given interest and is coasting along on fluffy clouds of happiness and joy, diversity, equality, equanimity and somnambulence.
A couple of points. First, you are correct that the site is called APPLE INSIDER, not APPLE FANBOY BELIEVE EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT APPLE SITE. The site, IMHO, is about the rational discussion of issue, not a Apple Kool-Aid site.
I am not suggesting anything along the lines you state. I do not assume that one or the other part is "right", I am simply saying that quite a few posts ASSUME that Apple is right and Emblaze is a patent troll, without having read the complaint or the patent. Neither have I, but I do believe that the case will be decided on the "merits" and not some blind faith that Apple is always right.
How is the patent system broken and irrelevant. Simply stating it without offering evidence is pointless. Given the information presented here, the system seems to be working (Emblaze has patent, thinks Apple infringed, and Emblaze files suit). The only way the system is "broken" is if one thinks Apple is always innocent. And yes, I have had god knows how many copyrights, and worked in a couple of research groups where patents were considered.