[Groxx]

>Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patent and the Apple App Makers are protected by that license.

That's a very good thing to hear. And extremely definitive. I'd imagine devs are breathing a lot easier now.

[sc00ter]

>That's a very good thing to hear.

It would be but for the distinction between "undisputedly" and "undisputably". All this says is that it hasn't been disputed, not that it can't be.

[sigzero]

I think Apple meant something very specific as any other reading doesn't make sense. They are saying it is "above dispute". Apple knows what they licensed.

[ars]

They aren't saying "above dispute", they are saying "has not been disputed" (and implying that it will not be disputed, but it could).

[xsmasher]

It's actually a little scary for non-ios devs; isn't Apple recognizing that the patent is valid?

[evan_]

That the patent exists and was legally acquired is not up for debate.

[xsmasher]

I should have asked: Does Apple's license make it harder for someone else to challenge the patent?

I assumed it would, but if I'm reading MedImmune v. Genentech correctly then it doesn't even make it harder for Apple to challenge.

[FlemishBeeCycle]

No one is questioning the existence of the patent - it's the validity of the patent that's being doubted. Given the current processes followed by the USPTO, existence says _nothing_ for its validity.

[cscheid]

Apple actually has a license for the patent. So yes, but in a much more direct way than you suggest.