Because encountering a terrorist is about as likely as winning the lottery, while encountering someone who shouldn't, but does have a gun is an almost daily occurrence?

Apple is harming itself.

I used to live in Pacifica California - approximately 200 yards from the San Andreas fault. When people from the gulf or Atlantic coasts asked me how I could live so close to a fault line my answer was always "at least there is no earthquake season".

It's not that Apple refuses to cross-license - they may, but the bigger problem is that Apple has no FRAND patents to offer in cross-licensing. They have design and utility patents, but Google is unlikely to consider these in cross-licensing because they probably feel they will eventually be invalidated.

When it comes to the core FRAND telecom patents, Apples has, as the saying goes, brought a knife to a gun fight. They can try to drag it out in court through appeals, but it's not like there are complex legal issues at stake here. They will lose. What ever license price they arrive at, it would be silly for a court to rule that the millions of previously sold, infringing devices, that should have been licensed, would not be subject to the license fee.

In the end, Motorola/Google has the bigger guns and has sufficient staying power if Apple chooses to drag it out. Google also has the option to seek an injunction against infringing devices.

Could HAVE

These are not functional patents, they are design patents. The TV depictions, in terms of design/trade dress show that the design is not novel and as there are multiple such TV/movie examples, obvious.

Exactly, and anyone who deploys many PCs daily or weekly is very unlikely to even consider Windows 8. Windows 8 has enormous switching costs. Any new version of OS has switching costs - testing and migration or redevelopment/replacement of legacy desktop apps, hardware replacement due to the ever increasing minimum platform requirements, dependencies on back office and desktop software roll out or update schedules, tech training on new OS, end user training on new OS and roll out logistics. All of these things costly and consume resources that could be put to use on other initiatives. Large companies are resistant to undertaking a major OS upgrade unless the pain associated with the old OS is too high, or the benefits of the new OS are very high. The tech and user training for Windows 8 with a whole new UI however is going to put it in a new category.

Windows 8 (IMO) doesn't bring significant new functionality to the enterprise. Windows 7 has (I think) 7 more years of official support, so why would anyone who doesn't have to switch? Consumers should still be able to buy Windows 7 machines for another 2 years, and corporations who install from slipstream or images will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I could be more clear, I left the "either" out of the sentence, but I only singled out Nokia and RIM as benefiting from suppressing Android. Qualcomm and Intel won't likely be joining either side of the dispute because they license and cross license LTE, WiMAX, HSPA, 3G and GSM technology to/from all smartphone manufacturers. They have more to gain from seeing the smartphone market grow, which would undoubtedly be hurt by more litigation. Apple (AFAIK) doesn't make its cellular/broadband chipsets - it purchases them form Intel and Qualcomm. Ericsson sold its stake in the Sony Ericsson JV and appears to be exiting the handset market, so is likely either neutral towards Google/Android/Apple or hostile towards both Apple and Google due to the impact both Android and iPhones had on their Symbian based products. I wasn't aware the Huawei sold handsets, but if this is true it would potentially put them on the Android side, it depends on how much they earn from licensing their RAND IP.

Nokia is now pretty much a Microsoft proxy and as an also ran in the market place, can only benefit from being a spoiler. RIM is less likely to play the spoiler, but more likely to (eventually) sell its smartphone IP to the highest bidder. .

Shhhh. Apple fanboys are easily confused by too many choices or controls. Besides, it makes life much easier for tech support.

Q: So how do I ...

Tech Support: Just press the button.

Q: But what about ...

Tech Support: Press the button.

Q: or ...

Tech Support: Press the button.

Q: Oh crap, now it's shut down and I've lost all my work!

Tech Support: Don't ever press that button!

This is true, but if the Android handset makers play their cards right, they can hit Apple with serial injunctions. Samsung, then Motorola, then LG, then HTC ...

Many years is also an exaggeration. If we take Oracle v. Google as an example, Google asked the USPTO to reexamine Oracles asserted patents in February 2011. By April 2012 when the trial started, all but 2 of Oracles claims had been invalidated by the USPTO. 14 months is not many years.

The process is far from over or certain, but as far as we know, we are dealing with a single patent and 2 claims, where Oracle v. Google (by the time the claims has been narrowed) dealt with (I think) 7 different patents and 20 some odd claims.

By refusing to negotiate and pursuing a litigation strategy on the FRAND patents, Apple is leaving themselves open to a far more damaging counter offensive. On the core telecom patents that define the 3G and 4G (LTE) wireless network standards, Samsung is a middle weight contributor of IP. The heavyweights of the LTE IP are LG, Qualcomm, Intel (via InterDigital), Motorola (Google) and Nokia. Additional core telecom IP portfolios are held by Ericsson, RIM, Huawei Corp and HTC.

Qualcomm, Ericsson, RIM, Intel, Huawei and Nokia are unlikely to join any IP counter offensive against Apple because they don't sell smartphone handsets, license technology to both sides or benefit from suppressing Android (Nokia/RIM). But LG, Motorola (Google) and HTC have a vested interest in defending Android and between them have substantial IP portfolios. It's important to note that these companies can not refuse to license their Standard Essential Patents, however Apple has so far refused to negotiate and has pursued a litigation strategy. Apple is not totally without ammunition in the telcomm patents; they were part of the coalition that purchased Nortel's IP, but most of the Nortel portfolio was already cross licensed to other standards contributors so are more useful for defensive purposes. Cross license agreements do not however protect Apple from having to negotiate FRAND license fees with the appropriate patent holders. If they refuse to negotiate, injunctions are in the future.

This is a 2-way street. I'd imagine Samsung is going after an injunction on the FRAND patents in time to hit the iPhone 5 for the Christmas shopping season.

While I generally disregard FloMo as a paid shill, he is right that the patent invalidation process is long and far from predictable. However, I expect that on this particular patent (and additionally on the multi-heuristic search patent) prior art and obviousness will prevail. These are rubbish patents.