You just know that Apple’s lawyers and executives must be slapping themselves on their backs and smiling broadly after being awarded yet another U.S. patent for mobile technology. The latest and greatest covers a number of features of their amazing touchsreens. While I’m not an attorney — and don’t play one on television — you can just bet that competing mobile device makers must be shaking in their boots.

If those patents are as all-encompassing as they seem to laymen, it could mean that Apple would have the power to force virtually every maker of a competing touchscreen-based  smartphone or tablet to stop selling those gadgets, pay Apple large sums of money, or a combination of both. It’s not a pretty picture for companies who hope to build iPhone and iPad killers.

Now intellectual property is not necessarily a cut and dried affair. The courts might regard the new touchscreen patents as overly broad, and toss them out. Or they might suggest or direct Apple to license some of those technologies to other companies at fair prices. Regardless, even if Apple requests preliminary injunctions to halt the sale of infringing gear, it may take years to resolve. In the meantime, there will be a cloud on each and every touch-based smartphone and tablet built by those other companies. Are they so sure of victory that they could afford to invest in products, market them, and not have everything come back to bite them down the road?

Of course, this doesn’t mean there’s no way around those patents. Perhaps the design engineers at Google and other companies are even now examining the patent filings, and seeing if they can devise workarounds that do not infringe on Apple’s property rights. This is what Dish Network attempted to do when they lost a key court case from TiVO that was designed to stop them from building DVRs that could record one show and play back another at the same time.

After several years of legal skirmishing, and losing just about every critical decision, the folks at Echostar, a sister company, realized they had no choice but to pay up before millions of set top boxes had to be disabled. If anything, licensing fees are what probably keep TiVO alive, since they sure can’t earn profits from the sale of hardware and services.

Now I do not know whether a workaround to sidestep Apple’s patents is even possible. I suppose there are many schemes to accomplish onscreen touch capability. But that’s for the engineers — with watchful eyes from company lawyers — to figure out. What’s more, even if they invent methods that do not infringe on Apple’s intellectual property, can it all be done in software, or will hardware have to be altered as well?

Even worse, would Apple file complaints anyway, just to make sure that all bases are covered?

I do not want to wear the shoes of the people charged with getting their employers out of this possible mess. More than likely, they might consider a double-pronged approach. As the engineers do their thing, lawyers will be ready to defend these companies from the almost inevitable cease and desist letters from Apple. It’s not going to be a pretty picture.

Unless such actions are filed right away, or the warning letters sent, there may be no more news about this situation until Apple holds the quarterly conference call financial analysts in July to talk about the June quarter. If no questions are asked then, I’d have serious concerns about those analysts and their ability to ask a company about such significant matters.

Now this doesn’t mean Apple doesn’t have to pay other companies for patent rights. That situation occurs all the time, and one-time fees or ongoing payments will be negotiated, as they were with Nokia. As you know, Apple has a curious habit of naming new products, and attempting to obtain the rights to use those names later. So, for example, Apple called their smartphone, logically of course, an iPhone even before they acquired the rights to do so from Cisco. There’s even now a pending court case about Apple’s right to use the trademark iCloud, even though they allegedly acquired those rights from another company. All so confusing.

But names are names. Technology is something else again, and Apple has been caught flat-footed there a few times too. Some years back, they had to pay millions to Creative Labs to get the rights to use certain features on the iPod. To Apple, all that cash is a drop in the bucket, but you can be assured that lawyers spent many hours negotiating the contracts.

If you check Apple’s SEC filings, you’ll even see that, at any point in time, the company is engaged in a number of legal actions over one matter or another. Not that Apple is necessarily more litigious than other multinational corporations. They live and die by the value of their trade secrets and intellectual property, and they have a perfect right to defend themselves whenever it’s necessary. Doing nothing is out of the question. The act of not defending intellectual property in a timely fashion may be enough to allow the alleged infringement to continue unabated.

So the published reports have it that Apple moved roughly two million of the second generation Apple TVs as of the end of the last quarter. So it appears that, in the scheme of things, Apple’s latest attempt to find a place in the sun — or your living room — next to existing set top boxes is having a modicum of success. Not too shabby.

At the same time, the first Google TV products, hobbled by software defects and other issues, haven’t fared so well. You don’t hear much about them these days, although it’s also true that Google is continuing to work out the kinks and make their vision — a combination of WebTV capabilities and a TV remote, more or less — count for something. May they will succeed, though I was skeptical of the concept from the outset.

As far as Apple TV goes, the current model is a credible performer. I’ve actually used it at times in place of Netflix for getting the latest and greatest movie releases. Seems Netflix was hoodwinked by the movie companies to hold off distribution of DVDs of new releases for 30 days to get more current movies to stream. This leaves a gap filled by the cable and satellite companies, not to mention iTunes.

Although Apple TV is limited to 720p resolution, compared to 1080p on a Blu-ray disc, the difference is actually not that serious on a typical large screen flat panel TV unless you look real close; just a hair less sharp and a bit more grainy. That said, I fully expect Apple will expand 1080p support to Apple TV in the next generation, just as they’ve done with the iPad 2, and probably the forthcoming iPhone 5, or whatever it’s going to be called. Of course, Apple would also have to offer the higher resolution version for sale or rent, and that would mean a much larger file to download. Maybe you’ll have a choice.

In any case, Apple TV, though relatively easy to use, has severe limitations. The no-frills remote operates in a very narrow angle, meaning you have to point it just so at the unit for it to respond. Also, the controls strike me as awkward, meaning that rummaging through the menus doesn’t feel near as fluid as it should be. I suppose Apple could revise the software well enough, and even add more movie services from which to download. But the remote transceiver system requires work. Maybe I should see if I can get my Logitech Harmony universal remote to recognize and function with Apple TV, but if the limited coverage area is a limitation of the device itself, it won’t do much good.

All that can be fixed in future versions, no doubt, but how is Apple supposed to expand the market when you can get pretty decent set top boxes from the cable and satellite companies for next to nothing? Sometimes they come free with special promotions. This is the dilemma Steve Jobs clearly recognizes. Apple TV, in its present form, is not the answer; it’s a holding action designed to give Apple a little more time to devise a better solution.

One possibility is to license Apple TV technology to TV makers, which would integrate that functionality and hardware into their home-brewed remotes. I suppose Apple’s unique interface would still be present, accessed via a single button on the remote. For all practical purposes, it would operate in the same fashion as the current Apple TV; your Wi-Fi hookup would access streamed content from iTunes and your iOS gadgets. But is there any incentive for TV makers to do that? They already offer third-party video or “connected TV” features even in some of the lower cost models. Netflix, YouTube and other services are there. Having iTunes would be nice, but would that be sufficient cause to sign a pact with Apple and pay a license fee for every unit sold?

The ultimate solution may be for Apple to do what Bose — the well-known speaker manufacturer — has done, which is to build their own enhanced high-end TV. There have been occasional rumors of just such a product for several years. Current speculation has it that the “real” Apple TV will arrive in time for the holiday season, meaning you’ll be able take home a high definition set from your nearest Apple Store or reseller.

But other than bundling Apple TV and adding a superior interface for settings, just what can Apple bring to the table? I mean, once you do the initial setup of your new TV, and I bet most customers stick with the default (too bright) settings, your daily encounter is limited to your set top box, and the interface they provide. Sure, I suppose Apple could license access to the cable and satellite providers, using an iOS-flavor interface to access the content you want. But just delivering a better programming menu doesn’t necessarily mean great success. Witness the struggles of TiVO, which has had a decidedly better hardware and software solution, but these days seems to be making do with licensing fees or, for example, the money won from that lawsuit against Dish Network.

So far as the hardware is concerned, TVs are very much commodity products. Can Apple deliver a better picture, more compelling 3D, than the current models? Would their unique software allow for more accurate color, adaptable settings that depend on your lighting situation and the age of the unit, and other enhancements? Would there be an integrated home theater audio system, shades of Bose? What about 3D without the glasses, and an enhanced gaming experience? Well, there are those Apple patent filings to chew over.

More to the point, how much can Apple charge for such a beast? These days, high-end 3D plasma TVs, with 50-inch or 51-inch screens, can be had for $1,500-$2,000. Bose charges $5,349 for a 46-inch LCD set featuring so-called “invisible” speakers that simulate surround sound. It doesn’t make sense to me either, and unless Apple can deliver something meaningful — and affordable — to a heavily saturated market, it’s hard to see a place for an Apple branded TV set.

As you know, Microsoft makes huge profits from the sale of software and services. While you can get a generic PC real cheap with a flavor of Windows preloaded, actually buying a copy at your favorite consumer electronics outlet can be extremely costly. Best Buy, for example, offers Windows 7 Ultimate, the edition with all features intact, for $319.99. If you’re using Windows Vista, you save $100 on an upgrade version.

Yes, I realize you can buy the OEM version, theoretically meant for PC makers and those who build their PCs by themselves, and if you shop around for the regular versions, you’ll save a fair amount of money. But nothing that comes close to the price of Mac OS 10.6 or Mac OS 10.7.

By charging $29 for Snow Leopard and $29.99 for Lion, Apple has upended the software industry, particularly the rules about retail operating system upgrades. While Apple can well afford to sell software cheaply, since most of their revenue comes from hardware sales, Microsoft can ill afford to compete. Selling Windows for 10% to 20% of the current price can wreck their cash flow, even if the financial structure can be altered to accommodate a lower price structure. Obviously the PC market is highly saturated, so it’s not as if that many more people would buy Windows upgrades if they were far less expensive. Apple, however, has plenty of room to grow the Mac and, as I said, income from operating system sales provides at best a minor bump to their bottom line.

With the Mac App Store, Apple is clearly intent on changing the price structure for just about any Mac developer, although the potential for higher volume ought to be the great equalizer. Leading by example, Apple reduced the price of Aperture, their photo editing app, from $199.00 for the retail boxed version, to $79.99 for the downloadable edition. iLife 11, still boxed, is $49, down from $79, and you can download the three apps that make up iWork for $19.99, compared to $79 for the boxed bundle.

But the real move towards affordable software began with Logic Studio, reduced in the most recent version to $499. For that price, it packs a wallop, a suite of studio-ready audio production apps accompanied by loads of special effects modules, audio effects, and royalty free music. This is the sort of product that cost at least twice as much in previous versions, and that’s before Apple considers whether to offer a Mac App Store version, which you know will be far cheaper, if and when it arrives, if you can manage the huge download.

Just this week, Apple expanded that strategy with Final Cut Pro X at $299.99, touted as a major rewrite to this popular app. Understand this is professional video editing software that is regularly used by TV and film studios across the world. Add $49.99, each, for Compressor and Motion, and you get powerful encoding, titling and special effects capabilities, all in a set of apps that, in the previous edition, cost more than twice as much.

There isn’t even an Express version of Final Cut Pro because the main version is so inexpensive even the budding Steven Spielberg or J.J. Abrams should find the purchase reasonably affordable. And, once again, these aren’t feature limited consumer apps, but products that cater to the needs of pros using banks and banks of Mac Pros for video rendering.

Compare Apple’s affordable approach to other companies that build professional content creation software, such as Adobe or even Quark Inc. Adobe Creative Suite Master Collection 5. 5 lists for $2,599, whether you buy it boxed or as an over 6GB download. Yes, it’s just $549 if you already own Master Collection 5.5, but that’s still a steep upgrade price.

This is not to say that Master Collection necessarily is equivalent to Final Cut Pro, its extra modules, and Logic Studio. Video and audio editing are just a portion of what Adobe’s entire content creation suite offers. At the same time, can Adobe continue to justify the price of a Mac Pro, or a loaded 27-inch iMac, for a single set of production apps? Even if you ditch Premiere Pro, the video editing app, and Audition, for audio, the lesser Creative Suites aren’t substantially cheaper.

At some point in time, I expect that Adobe will want entry into the Mac App Store. They will have to rejigger their apps to require simple installation schemes, of course, but they will also have to consider how many more customers they’d get if they dropped that $2,599 list price for the Master Collection to something more sensible, perhaps $999. Yes, sales would have to more than double to make up the difference, unless, of course, you designed the new versions in a way that they aren’t upgradeable from any previous edition. That’s the approach Apple is taking with their new lower price points.

Adobe’s wants to maintain parity with the Windows version, of course, but they could still offer that edition direct from their site.

As far as Microsoft is concerned, management remains tone-deaf, so I don’t think they comprehend yet the damage Apple is doing to their existing pricing structures. The clue will be the list prices for the various versions of Windows 8, whenever it’s released. If you can suddenly get an Ultimate edition for $99 or a tad less, maybe there will be reason to conclude that Microsoft finally gets it.

When a company withholds information about future products, you can bet that, if that company makes good stuff that’s hugely popular, the rumor mills will be actively trying to figure out what’s going on behind the scenes. So it stands to reason that Apple, the most prosperous tech company on the planet by various measures, will make people regularly talk about them, often by doing absolutely nothing.

So you just know that there will soon be a revised MacBook Air sporting Intel’s powerful and power efficient Sandy Bridge chips, and no doubt the Thunderbolt peripheral port, although there’s little or nothing to plug in to that port so far in terms of high-speed accessories. None of this seems unexpected, because that’s the typical upgrade cycle. Besides, since the MacBook Air, at lower price points, has become a huge sales success, you can bet Apple wants to keep it up to date.

Fine and dandy, except the next page of speculation has it that the update has been put off to July or August. Why? Well, apparently Apple would rather ship these refreshed MacBook Airs with Lion preloaded. It doesn’t make sense to release a new model one month, and a major OS upgrade the next. That puts Apple in the position of forcing people to install system upgrades within days or weeks after buying what’s supposed to be the latest and greatest.

That makes plenty of sense. So long as current MacBook Air sales are pretty solid, it also doesn’t mean that Apple would necessarily suffer from holding off such an upgrade, if that’s what they plan to do of course. There’s also a newer story that suggests there will be a black aluminum version, shades of the black MacBook, although that model used plastics. However, a later report includes a claim allegedly from an anonymous Apple employee that the company wasn’t able to successfully produce a black coating.

By the same token, you will probably also wait a month or two for upgrades for the Mac mini and Mac Pro. Few mention the plain MacBook anymore. I suppose the MacBook Air could be regarded as its replacement, although that truly depends on how sales fare, considering the last MacBook update came in 2010. But don’t count that model out just yet.

While all these updates seem predictable enough, adding Sandy Bridge chips and one or more Thunderbolt ports, the direction of the Mac Pro may be a question mark. As Apple moves extra CPU horsepower and expandability, courtesy of Thunderbolt, to the iMac, I expect the prospective market for the Mac Pro is being sharply reduced. There will still be a number of content creators who need an ultimate Mac with internal expansion ports, and the highest performance possible, even if the level is, under most circumstances, only slightly ahead of a fully outfitted iMac.

There’s also speculation that suggests a redesigned Mac Pro case, designed to fit the 3U slots in a datacenter rack. This would make it more convenient to install banks of Mac Pros doing movie special effects rendering and other tasks that can be shared among different computers. It would also, in part, resurrect the possibilities of a high-end Macintosh server, a market mostly abandoned by Apple when the Xserve was discontinued. At the same time, the $49.99 server upgrade for Mac OS X Lion has made it far more affordable for small businesses and educational institutions to consider a Mac server solution.

From the “sky is falling” department, there’s more talk than ever about new malware threats on the Mac. This all started with that scareware episode, where Internet criminals wrote MAC Defender and similar apps designed to separate you from your hard-earned cash, or credit card balances, rather than protect your Mac against anything. Apple has even offered enhanced protection against MAC Defender and its siblings, although it may be true that these fake apps are being updated and renamed as fast as Apple can deliver silent upgrades to Snow Leopard users to protect you from downloading that useless junk.

Certainly the millions of people who were infected with Windows-based malware over the years might feel satisfied that Mac users might be getting their share of misery. It’s also evidently true that thousands and thousands of people downloaded MAC Defender, and actually paid for it. Even though Apple is offering protection, buttressed by a number of genuine security apps for the Mac, it doesn’t seem as if the Mac platform is suddenly suffering from a huge outbreak of malware. This particular scareware episode seems a singular effort, and it doesn’t necessarily rely on security holes on a Mac, except, perhaps, a single preference setting in Safari about opening “Safe” files after downloading. It relies on social engineering, the ability of these hucksters to fool you into believing that you’re in danger from a malware infection, and they are here to offer a solution.

Indeed, that sort of scheme doesn’t depend so much on operating system limitations as on the human condition. Nothing stops them from building versions for Linux, though the numbers of people who might be susceptible are far smaller, simply because Linux doesn’t really cater to consumers as much as the Mac and Windows.

But I still don’t think we’re suddenly going to see a major outbreak of Mac malware. It might happen, it could happen, but it’s also clear that Apple is taking the matter far more seriously than before. Don’t forget that Mac OS X Lion will improve sandboxing of apps, and Apple may, in the end, force Mac developers to get with the program, just as they’ve already done on the iOS. That way, an app runs in its own space, and can’t impact other apps, even if it suddenly is infected with a virus. No, the Mac will never be immune to viruses, but the situation will likely be better controlled than Windows, particularly if you consider the older versions of that OS.