How does that harbor fair trade? Neither the inventor nor the holder have made any attempt to bring a product to market.
It should be the burden of the court to prove that the patent was actively being used (by the holder) to produce a product and that the infringement directly hurt the potential target market of the product in question.
The patent may be too expensive for a small fry to convert into a product. Requiring them to do that turns the patent system into an instrument for incumbents to absorb inventions from others (who cannot afford to build the full product) while not having to release any of their own rights (because they can afford to build the product, so preserve the patent).
A non-practising patent holder is also more likely to licence the patent to lots of other entities compared to one that makes products. This is one of the concerns around NVidia's proposed takeover of ARM, a non-practising entity that creates and licences computer processor designs.
Licensing is providing a product through 3rd party. I’m talking about a holder that has just sat on the patent and no product has been developed from its issue.
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?
It should be the burden of the court to prove that the patent was actively being used (by the holder) to produce a product and that the infringement directly hurt the potential target market of the product in question.