This appears to be a defensive maneuver in Apple's litigation with Lodesys. You obviously didn't read the article so I'll quote part of it here: "The idea is, in general, very similar to the Lodsys patent, however, it is much more specific. If Apple was granted the rights to the patent, both sides could easily challenge each other's patents. The question, of course, would also be what Apple would do, if this patent is granted, about Android, Windows Phone and Blackberry developers? Most likely nothing, as there are countless iOS developers who offer their apps for multiple platforms and Apple may not have an interest in upsetting them."

It seems as though there are exactly two reasons to get a patent.

To troll people with, and to protect yourself from the first.

It's about time we just did away with the entire system.

In this particular case, protecting itself (Apple) could mean protecting iPhone developers.

My point is that if the only "legitimate" purpose of patents is to counteract the illegitimate purpose, the proper solution is to do away entirely.

<slow clap>

Apple has plenty interest in nobbling the Amazon Kindle, though. If that move would deliver value for shareholders, they'd be remiss to not use the patent aggressively over its lifetime.

Maybe the attempt to patent this is just to draw out prior art, submitted by objectors, that could then be turned against Lodsys even if it torpedoes their own application.

But it is also possible Apple attacks it competition , possible after Lodsys, something it has been well know for recently.

How does getting a patent help with challenging another patent which predates yours? Doesn't Apple instead need prior art from 2006?

You can get a patent on an invention that improves on an existing patent. Looks like that's what they're doing.

I think it's pretty well proven that no matter previous patents; the deepest pockets, win's the most lawsuits.