From the article: This defense is known as "exhaustion" — the third parties in question should be covered by the original license, so patent owners can't claim infringement by those third parties.
The company asserts that developers are its business partners, and therefore Apple has a material interest in protecting those partners from being sued over technology that it has previously licensed. The heart of the dispute hinges on the licensing terms Apple received from Intellectual Ventures, though the details of those terms apparently cannot be publicly revealed.
Apple believes the licence it has protects its partners. Without seeing the terms of the licence it is impossible to say if this is the case, but it is certainly possible.
> Apple believes the licence it has protects its partners. Without seeing the terms of the licence it is impossible to say if this is the case, but it is certainly possible.
And it certainly seems silly that Apple would not have sought those terms in its license. Of course, patent licenses don't often appeal to common sense, but the one thing Apple has is foresight.
The company asserts that developers are its business partners, and therefore Apple has a material interest in protecting those partners from being sued over technology that it has previously licensed. The heart of the dispute hinges on the licensing terms Apple received from Intellectual Ventures, though the details of those terms apparently cannot be publicly revealed.
Apple believes the licence it has protects its partners. Without seeing the terms of the licence it is impossible to say if this is the case, but it is certainly possible.