See, this is exactly what I and others talk about as the absolute death of technology.
First of all, out of the usual team-sports mentality, you automatically assume everything is Apple's- even overly-broad concepts which is what all of this is about, and that because they're a big giant company that makes shiny toys you like, everyone else should have to 'settle' with them, or design according to their whims, because they own everything.
No, I assume that Apple owns what they've patented though, which is the law. And they don't own everything, merely implementations of certain ideas which can be implemented in other ways. If a company doesn't want to do that, they should probably pay the owner of the patent or try to have it invalidated or argue in court that their implementation does not infringe on the patent.
So should iFONE have just settled with them? No. Apple lost. Now they have to pay iFONE a boatload of money every time they try to sell and iPhone in Mexico. They can't even use the name iPhone in Mexico, as it's Apple that's infringing using that name, not iFONE.
Why do you keep saying that? It's not true. Apparently a hasty early translation of the original news seemed to suggest that, but it's not true. Please read
this article which has been linked to at least a few times now in this thread.
And really, there was no settlement option. Apple was attempting to have the mark invalidated due to it not actively being used. Apparently Apple wanted to do this because they had applied for another (They already have 2 in Mexico) trademark for iPhone in the same class that the iFONE trademark existed in. They probably wouldn't be able to get their trademark application approved as long as the other existed.
I also have no clue whether or not their claim that the trademark was not being actively used is true or not. I don't live in Mexico, so I have no idea if it's been used there recently. Furthermore, I don't know what the laws for that country are, so even if it wasn't in use, it would still be possible for the company that owned it to keep it just by defending it.
And you also act like they win every case. They don't.
No I don't. I've said on multiple occasions that they've probably won about half, a point made to counter the absurd notions that Apple is somehow "abusing" the legal system or bringing a large number of fraudulent cases to court.
Also, as I've said before, until all of the appeal options are exhausted on any case, any loss or victory is only temporary. It could be several more years before any of these matters are considered truly resolved. By then, things will have swung enough in the favor of one side that a settlement is likely.
They can't just sue everyone else to keep them from surpassing them, as opposed to actually making products that keep up with the competition's products.
They conceivably could as long as their competitors infringe on their products. It's not as though these lawsuits came out of nowhere.
That's largely what they're attempting to do lately- sue to hold everybody back, rather than actually innovate to keep up with and even stay ahead of the game.
If they have a valid patent on some technology, why should their competition get to use it for free?
Just look how delusional the Apple-fan 'argument' is about this whole subject. "Why can't Apple just sit on its ass for 10 years and no one else can make a smartphone?" is the crux of their non-argument, as if that would be good for the consumer. It wouldn't be good for anyone, the consumer or the entire tech industry.
I don't think anyone has said that, even the Apple fans. Also, I'm quite sure that Apple doesn't hold patents that would prevent anyone else from making a smart phone.