1. I think your assumption of pay-to-play is too strong. It's true to some degree but it's not as simple as having the right budget. For one, there are always factions working against you. There are always multiple jurisdictions and branches to consider, with different incentives. Add currents of public opinion and how they impact electoral and business interests on top of it all... it's a complex puzzle. So even the biggest budget is no guarantee.
2. Your broader point about Apple and patents presumes that all software patents are always bad. That may be popular on HN, but I sincerely doubt it's that black and white. Yes, patent trolling trivial components or processes feels and probably is overtly 'wrong'. But there's a more nuanced debate about creating the right incentives to do difficult intellectual work that benefits everyone. There's probably a 'correct' granularity of patentable idea even in software.
1) agreed, though I would think that the combined companies could have larger sway than others.
2) I mostly disagree. Where software is so specialized and valuable, I anticipate that it would be held privately and not necessarily made public. This seems to me to be better protected by copyright and not patent law. IANAL, but copyright feels more appropriate, and while you might be right that there is some majestic software that is so unique, but yet so easily duplicated (without the source) that it deserves monopoly protection, I don't believe that exists, but if there are some pure examples that can be held up, I'd be happy to change my opinion.
A less aggressive option than getting rid of software patents entirely, might be changing the way that we apply for them. What if the source code itself was required to be submitted with the patent application, and not just the design. Part of the reason patents exist is to encourage the disclosure of the design, so that when the monopoly ends, society benefits from the advancement.
What if the patented software was always required to be open-sourced? Would this be a means for easily fending off trolls? They'd have to show a working program, for one thing (it's not clear to me that they do now), and failure to do that could be an easy way to get a summary judgement against them.
Fair points and I like your suggestions. Definitely no lawyer, but I see the theoretical value in IP broadly. Whether patents and software are the right configuration.. I hold very loose opinions there.
To bring it back to Apple, I have a hard time casting strong moral judgment on their stance when they're not patent trolling others, even if they're not leading the righteous revolution. Their Samsung lawsuit feels more along the lines of what you describe in the copyright realm -- it's a defense of their design / expression of the ideas.
For point two, I disagree, but I also suspect that this is the real reason that many of these companies aren't actively fighting for patent reform. Their definition of "right" patenting is the one that benefits them the most, and their definition of "wrong" is the one that hurts them the most (even if it would help small inventors).
See also many of Apple's patent lawsuits over the past 10 years.
2. Your broader point about Apple and patents presumes that all software patents are always bad. That may be popular on HN, but I sincerely doubt it's that black and white. Yes, patent trolling trivial components or processes feels and probably is overtly 'wrong'. But there's a more nuanced debate about creating the right incentives to do difficult intellectual work that benefits everyone. There's probably a 'correct' granularity of patentable idea even in software.