[ugh]

Apple’s lawyers seem to believe that licensing those patents is unavoidable or at the very least that not licensing would cost more than licensing them.

You might disagree with that interpretation of the law but you should never claim that it’s an endorsement of software patents.

I do not know Apple’s stance on software patents but I simply cannot see how Apple’s actions in this case can be interpreted as revealing Apple’s stance on software patents in any way.

[rbanffy]

I do not disagree that crushing Lodsys forever would have cost more than enabling it by paying their racket. OTOH, it will cost more to the market as whole not having crushed Lodsys when it was easy and, by helping it grow, Apple has done a disservice to us all.

And yes. They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing?

[sorbus]

> They failed to take a stand because it was cheaper not to. Does that look anything but revealing?

Apple is a corporation. That is exactly how corporations behave: they do not take a stand unless they see material benefit in doing so. If you want to claim that something is revealing about Apple's view of patents, perhaps you should consider the number of patents Apple has.

Also, an analogy: if someone mugs me and I hand over my wallet, that does not mean that I'm endorsing the process of mugging. It means that I've decided that the known cost of complying (the contents of my wallet) is less than the potential cost of any injuries I might sustain in the process of fighting back.

[rbanffy]

Apple is a corporation, but we like to delude ourselves thinking they are a different kind of corporation, founded on different values.