Very little in this sort of thing surprises me, but this passed the threshold: "Lodsys next argues that it should be granted the right to conduct discovery on the Apple license in order to establish that the license doesn't grant whatever rights Apple claims." Apparently, Lodsys doesn't even know what license has been extended to Apple. Which is slightly less silly than I'm making it sound because it was the previous patent owner that did it, but still.... does seem a rather disadvantageous position to be trying to prosecute litigation from, almost to the point of bad faith if not actually over the line.
No wonder they don't want to defend it against Apple, aside from Apple's financial and legal might, they seem to have no idea what they might actually be defending against.
"Your license doesn't say that! At least we think it doesn't, can you just let us have a look at it to check?"
It kind of funny when you think about it: Novell sold DR-DOS to Caldera specifically so Caldera could sue Microsoft (Novell didn't want to do it themselves for PR reasons). Caldera would reach a settlement with MS in 2000 and, later that same year, would use some of those funds to help finance their purchase of SCO.
It seems to me that, in a limited manner, Novell reaped what it sowed.
