It is highly significant to me that Apple switched its general counsel this past September by bringing in Intel's general counsel, Bruce Sewell, to fill the rol

It is highly significant to me that Apple switched its general counsel this past September by bringing in Intel's general counsel, Bruce Sewell, to fill the role. Intel has been notoriously aggressive over the years in using its patent portfolio as a hammer against rivals, including AMD, to keep its competitive advantage, and Mr. Sewell is, among other things, a leading patent litigator by background, training, and experience. His fit for the role of leading protector of Apple's treasure chest of patents is, to me, an obvious one, and it is a fit precisely because Mr. Sewell has lots of experience in fighting patent fights on both sides of a case. For a pretty good write-up discussing Mr. Sewell's appointment as Apple's GC and some of these implications, see http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-snaps-up-bruce-sewell-intels-top-lawyer-20090916/ http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-snaps-up-bruce-sewe.... Another point to note here: Mr. Sewell replaced Dan Cooperman in the GC role. I worked with Dan years ago at a prominent San Francisco law firm and he is a splendid lawyer but he is not a litigator and never has been. He is said to have "retired" in stepping down from the Apple GC role but he in fact moved back to his old firm, where is once again doing corporate work (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446350729&rss=newswire http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446350729&rss=...). Now, a switch in general counsel can happen for many reasons but the circumstances here would suggest that one very important reason for the switch that occurred last September with Mr. Sewell's appointment is that Apple intends to be very aggressive about patent enforcement. While we can't know this for sure from the outside, we can know that it has certainly armed itself well to pursue that goal should it need or desire to do so.