Unfortunately, the article dodges
factual details about exactly what patents were being licensed. The article implies that the matters at issue had to do with "connected cars," whatever
that means.
However, until patent examiners have credible ability to decide what is and isn't patentable in the world of software – until Congress actually decides the matter – we will continue to be vexed with
worthless software patents.
For example, operating system textbooks routinely talk about "atomic compare-and-swap" instructions and demonstrate them being used to update the pointers of a linked-list.
"Uh uh! That's patented!"
And, frankly, that's what "patents, in general" have de-evolved to. How the hell is an examiner, faced with a sea of incoming applications, going to know what is or isn't "unique and non-obvious?" Answer: "they
don't!" Out comes the rubber stamp and into the mail goes a pretty piece of official paper that means absolutely nothing. Except to the lawyers who, yes, use it for extortion. There is basically
nothing that you can do, or invent, that will not run afoul of maybe hundreds of patents. And the lawyers who are in the (lucrative) business of "protecting inventor's interests" routinely take 90% or more of their winnings as profit.