> Perhaps, but one of the purposes of holding a patent is give > one grounds for
> dragging ones opponents into lengthy and, most important, > expensive legal
> battles, the purpose of which is to distract the opponent and > drain their
> resources.  If someone who is reasonably well funded, such as > Apple, takes
> it into their collective heads to squash a freeware provider > based on patent
> infringement, I do not doubt that they can.  They don't have > to win the case
> on its merits - they just have to delay, delay, delay until > the target of
> their ire runs out of money.  Then they win.

There is certainly some truth in this.  However, I have represented folks on both sides of these, big and small.  Big monied companies have better things to do with their budget than to submit to the massive expense (and downside of having a deep pocket on the counterclaims) of a patent lawsuit.  The worse the patent, the greater their risk, and the lesser their benefit.

In short, they aren't likely to do that unless the technology is valuable.  If the technology is valuable, the defendant is going to get funding, directly or indirectly, for his defense.  Bottom line, after bluffs get called, little of the really bad stuff happens in practice.