We all know Apple as the innovative face of the personal communications industry. With the rise of reliable and unlimited mobile broadband, the iPod, iPad and iPhone are rapidly becoming iconic devices in the same way as the Sony Walkman once was. But with success often comes the need to defend your intellectual property in the form of patents. But when does this desire to protect your investment descend into money-grabbing greed and bullying? Some say Apple is fast approaching this point with the employment of what are known as 'patent trolls'.

You may have seen the case recently in which HTC were sued by Apple over alleged patent infringements. In the end, they only could prove one infringement which should have little impact on HTC design. But a precedent was set, with BT suing Google over six alleged Android patent infringements and the potential for more litigation now that Google has acquired Motorola Mobility. Are we entering a mobile war and who will actually benefit from it?

If the rumours are to be believed, then it is the patent trolls such as Digitude Innovations who will gain. They are involved in acquiring patents for themselves by transfer under license from the owners. This then leaves then free to pursue anyone they want, including Apple, Motorola, BT, Microsoft and more. Size provides no immunity. They profit by pushing for large out-of-court settlements or by simply winning court cases.

Where this will end up is not known. But allowing and possibly actively encouraging these middle men to act on their behalf could be seen as an aggressive way to push the competition out of the way. It is a lot easier than out-marketing them, which costs billions of pounds a year to each company. If you can get a blanket ban on the sale of any phone with the infringing technology in the US especially, but also in Europe, they are effectively out of business. At the stroke of a pen your competition is dispensed with.

This may be unwise of Apple, because all of this could be seen as corporate bullying and intimidation, which might alienate customers. Moving to another company is simple, as those with reliable unlimited mobile broadband can easily switch phones and just upload all their links and favourites from online storage sites. Secondly, what if too many of the cases are lost, drag on and cost too much money? There is the real risk that Apple themselves might be on the receiving end of a successful patent case. What if their own devices get banned in certain markets?

It is a risky game that Apple is playing. Yes, they have to defend their patents or they lose them. But is employing this middle man as your brutal enforcer always the right or most efficient way to do it? Finally, could the time spent on pursuing these claims, whether justified or not, be better spent elsewhere? Apple is at a critical point. With the sad demise of Steve Jobs, a serial innovator and driver of success has been removed. They have to fill that void so they can continue to be a market leader. Can they do it while they are engaging in litigation in various courts around the world? Only time will give us the answer to this question.