loquitur

The 4K specs "revealed" here are not exactly secret.  2160p for those color spaces is bog-standard
for HEVC/H.265 chatted up months ago at WWDC.   If my $279 4K TV (Samsung/Costco/last year's model) displays that
(in HDR even), why wouldn't the next-gen Apple TV transmit this?   As for the 15 Mbps "reveal" -- 
that makes perfect sense, too.   I.e. Netflix currently advertises to regular folk that for their 4K material encoded
with H.264, 25 Mbps is needed.   Well, since Apple claimed at WWDC that their HEVC encoder 
uses 40% fewer bits on average, thats 15 Mbps.   Not secret sauce.

"Little Zooks, of whom no one was fond,
Was shot towards the roof and beyond;
The infant's trajectory passed him over the rectory,
And into a lily-choked pond."   -- Edward St. John Gorey

Shades of the Apple iPod Hi-Fi, supposedly with a state-of-the-art Class D amp,
still going strong in my kitchen after all these years, ignoring the dock and the
boom box batteries.   Sounds bigly!

If this was supposed to hurt Netflix the company, represented by NFLX the stock,
it's backfired -- the stock is at an all-time high.   Looks like free publicity for episodes
out in a few weeks anyway.  They are not pay-per-view, and under the non-commercial
sub model there are no lost profits from ads.

Noting that Apple possesses Australian patents, e.g. 2017201548 from:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/quickSearch.do?queryString=apple&resultsPerPage=

perhaps the banking industry would want to license such things.

And what if Apple refuses -- is there compulsory licensing?   The law exists, due
to either the patentee 'not locally working' the patents (not Apple's case), or
a trade or industry is "unfairly prejudiced" in some manner:

http://www.fpapatents.com/resource?id=216

As of 2013 no compulsory licences (Oz-speak uses two "c's" for the noun)
have ever been granted in Australia, perhaps due to, as the author notes, a
"costly and time consuming process with the Federal Court."