If no product is ever developed, then there is no licensing or infringement. A troll may still try to use it to suppress some other product but that can be done regardless of whether a product is developed.

I looked at one of the patents from the Apple case, US6393286B1. Unlike the "small fry" scenarios described above, this was registered by Ericsson. I cannot tell whether the patent is actually inventive, but it seems likely that Ericsson themselves did create a product, as they were involved in creating the 3G standards in the 1990s and they also produced phones. The accusation here is that Apple also created a product based on the same technology, without paying the licensing fees. The current holder bought the rights to the patent in the secondary market. The effect on Apple is the same whether it is Ericsson or the current owner enforcing it.

I just looked up the patent and I now support Apple 100%. That patent is nothing. Like what even is the patent? Measure communication between mobile terminals? What is the patent protecting? What process has been described that’s been violated? I was giving the patent the benefit of the doubt, but that patent is superfluous. Is it the specific radio frequency? Is it specific to mobile phones? Was it proved that this was a unique invention that couldn’t be confused with a different method?

What product did Apple make that specifically infringes on this patent?