True, at least in theory. While not all that much relevant in this particularly case (or at least not likely), I've heard from several patent lawyers (granted,

True, at least in theory. While not all that much relevant in this particularly case (or at least not likely), I've heard from several patent lawyers (granted, this is still hearsay) that it is a rather common practice for big companies to patent any potentially relevant new technologies from smaller players (often when still under development), only to bully these potential competitors. Considering the high price of patent lawyers, this is sadly a rather effective method for protecting a dominant market position, but it's also very destructive to innovation as a whole (because apparently many of these patents are subsequently never used to actually produce anything). It's a rather cynical abuse of the system, and one that goes directly against its stated goal: to promote innovation. However, it could also be argued, from the (early) history of patents and how they have been used throughout time, that this has always been a charade, and it really was always more about controlling innovation and technological progress, rather than actually stimulating it.