Your biases are showing :)
When you say "you don't have to comply", what you're really saying is you don't have to buy an iPhone.
I didn't say, I was quoting the article, that is probably also guessing on that point, because they don't give any source for that allegation.
My point was that the summary asserted that if Apple were to implement this patent, it would be a U-turn for them, when the article doesn't state as much.
Your allegation is also a biased speculation, especially as buying an Android or a Windows phone is unlikely to protect you, which gets us to the second point.
"Wild speculation" that a company that has filed a patent for a technology has some intention on monetizing that technology.
Large companies are patenting everything they can, because it is cheap to them. They can benefit from these patents in different ways :
- Direct monetization by the way of an exclusive feature. In that case, not going to maximize their benefit. What's the point of exclusivity when competitor phone makers have a disjoint set of users ? It's not going to give them more users.
- Monetization through patent licensing. Also get them some money from competitors like Google and Microsoft. Amazon would probably be interested, too.
- Patent cross-licensing agreement. That's what big companies do. When time comes to renegotiate the agreement, they better have something interesting to show up. They don't get money, but more patents to use.
- Defensive patent. If a litigious company is doing something like that, it better properly license that patent before suing. Probably not applicable in that case, as the patent is quite specific.
I notice that quite a few Slashdotters are going with "prevent other companies to implement methods described by that patent", but that is wishful thinking :) .