If the patent owner has something unique about its filing system that can be shown to have been stolen by Apple, it’s valid
When your opponent shows legal, relevant patents to the court, your best defense is not telling the court he is an eighth grade drop-out.
I and many others have read through these patents and can find nothing in them unique. It was all being done before 1998, the date they are claiming for their priority. . . but what they are suing for is not even that. They are essentially claiming they invented the concept of buying content securely over the internet from any device. . . an obvious absurdity. They claim this because they included the steps necessary for their SmartFlash device to work in their claims. Since it was in their claims, they say that their patent gives them the patent on online sales of downloadable content. ALL downloadable content sales. This is not what they were claiming to have invented. . . but was a submarine inclusion in the claims. . . but was something already being done.
I’ll save you the trouble.
If Apple sues someone over a flimsy, and overly-broad patent that should have never been granted, it is a valid exercise in preventing evil people from stealing Apple’s ideas.
If someone sues Apple for the same reason, then those people are evil SOBs and are doing it because they are bad and greedy jerks.