Not really. Take the patent system away, and all Apple has is a nice market share, a fat war chest and it's own ability to produce interesting products.

Apple has taken the posture of the 800lb gorilla with a questionable legal maneuver, leveraging a patent systems its competitors were happy to support to keep smaller players down until it was used against them. And Apple can still lose the next move in this legal chess game if Google takes them on.

This is very different from for instance the Microsoft of the '90s that had so much market power of its own it could dictate terms and kill competition simply with money and threats.

That was a real 800lb gorilla. Apple is playing a very dangerous game by faking it through dubious legal tactics. But one court decision that doesn't go their way can completely kill that.

Regardless of whether this ruling was correct or incorrect, I don't think anyone imagined Apple as the underdog in quite some time. (If you used a time machine to tell 20-year-ago me that Apple was the new evil empire while Bill Gates was off trying to cure malaria I would have laughed you off.)

Also, being the underdog or the overdog should not affect one's property rights. If a tiny small company does/does not deserve protection, then so does a big one.