Couple of things seriously wrong in this statement alone:
1) I seriously doubt you can describe the patents as "end-to-end crypto". If you are going to broadly describe something rather complex in 4 words then I would suggest "Apple’s VPN on demand function" as a better example. Similar #num of words yet suddenly significantly narrower isn't it. However, even that doesn't scratch the surface, looking at the titles of the patents in trial provides a better glimpse that this is more than just simply "end-to-end crypto":
6,502,135 - Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability
7,418,504 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names
7,490,151 - Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request
7,921,211 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names
Are you starting to understand that this isn't merely "end-to-end crypto" or do we need to go into the Claims and how to properly begin to evaluate patent property boundaries?
2) I don't have the time to replay the entire infringement trial, but it seems to me you believe this trial was unjust or resulted in an improper outcome. I highly doubt that Apple had incompetent lawyers or did not have enough resources. The court and jury disagrees with your assessment.
> Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players.
Measured by market cap, Apple is the worlds biggest corporation. VirnetX is not small, not tiny, but rather miniscule in comparison. Is this is fight between 2 big players? No. Did the bigger player win? No.
> There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way.
Proves my point in previous post - small players don't have to re-invent the kitchen sink (in this case smartphones) but rather should focus on some small innovation (e.g. a VPN on demand feature - except translate to something of tomorrow - these patents are from 10-15 years ago). Find that 50 LOC - not re-invent 500k LOC. For now, the only pitfall is that larger players still believe they are better off to fight later in court rather than license now from the inventor when they find a new innovation. Blackberry learned 10 years ago, maybe Apple will learn today, and hopefully others will learn from their lessons.
Patents enable the small player to innovate and find success.