6,073,036: 2000, Newton came out in 1998. Sorry. Numerous touchscreens also came out long before that. Apple has pleanty of prior art on this one, as do others, to invalidate this patent entirely.
6,262,735: 2001, again, Newton as prior art, let alone every touch display released prior for POS systems and more.
6,518,957, 2003, touch screen phone (does not specify mobile in patent!), i give to you Apple's 1983 tehcnology: http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/apple-touchscreen-phone-circa-1983
6,714,091: 2004: Honestly, beyond me a bit, but it sounds fairly specific, and easy to work around, but if it is in fact general enough, would not every device on the market using CPU stepping violate this patent? Also, kinda obvious once you penetrate the tech speak, and I don't see how its much different than some patents filed as early as 1973 i found describing basically the same system, which by this point have all expired.
6,834,181: I don't know of any apple devices offhand that specifically do this, but can one patent the placement of parts inside of an object as a "machine or device" I though you could only patent functional systems, this seems like a combination of aesthetics and a miniaturization technique, which is itself not patentable. Throw it out.
6,895,256: 2003, All refers to the single-chip camera assembly, which apple purchases from what they could assume is a licensed distributor of such technology. But, just in case not, It correlates to analog image monitoring system of on-camera analog sensors for image capture timeing and exposure balance using an onboard integrated image processing system and control bus signal prior to the image being captured and sent to a digital processor. The iPhone cameras do not incorporate such a system, and rely on off-camera image processing not a single-chip solution. Maybe the iSight infringes? who makes the single-chip camera inside those? Not Apple... Still, 2003? Fairly certain i was seeing system-on-a-chip digital cameras in BestBuy prior to that date... Again, refers to mobile terminal, not mobile communications device, so all digital cameras fall into that category.
6,924,789: 2005, Sorry, a) this refers to a capacitive touch screen with specific sensor points correlating to "switches" for keys as well as accepting touch guestures. Apple does not correlate keys to explicit "switches" in the capacitive matrix, it;s all done in software, and B) Apple has a stack of patents on the iPhone's touchscreen dating prior to this patent. Also specifically the patent states the keys are made from silicone rubber, coated in a transparent matrix and hard top coat, and the matrix is comprised of indium-tin-oxide. This is simply too specific of a patent and does not apply to any apple technology I know of, excpet posibly the original iPod ring interface, which was available long prior to 2005...
This is a WEAKER set of patents than Nokia's original volley. Apple's counter suit was actually chock full of REAL patents that clearly indicated Nokia's (and others) violations. Apple does not often attack others when patent disputes are for fairly mundane techologies like this that they really don't care if their competitors use (the interface is right out though!), but they drag them out like this when someone throws a frivilous suit against Apple itself. They exist for defensive purposes. Nokia has weak claims, which might get a small judgement (a few tens of millions), but Apple's counter claims could easily have half or more of nokia's own devices yanked from the market, and have a multi-hundred million return claim. These new claims i think can be easily shot down by Apple's crack legal team.
If Nokia gets out of this paying APPLE less than $100M I'll be surprised. They best simply back down and open the license (and that alone means everyone else gets to stop paying as soon as their current contract terms run out if not sooner). Apple admitted they were approached about some of the GSM licensing for this stuff, and when they did not agree to the rediculous terms, worked around the patents completely, and Apple's folks are REALLY good about doing that properly when they're aware of possible infringement. Nokia however is in direct violation of several key Apple patents I can't find prior art for, nor can I simply dismiss otherwise.
Also, Nokia's admission they're not only behind Apple and RIM, but they "plan to catch up in 2011" including saying "we will also win the war because, in addition to email, we will be adding content, chat, music, entertainment and several other features, which will soon become very critical for success of any company in this space." Well, what, do they think Apple is going to sit on it's ass until 2011??? Chat, already on the iPhone. Music? c'mon. They've got 4.0 in the works, and new tech on the horizon, and there's NO WAY anyone's keeping pace with apple in this space. Yea, they each come up with a gimmick or two in some new devices Apple might not get to first, and in some areas Apple itself is playing catch up (background plug-ins, launch page), but they're not going to pass apple in OS function, device performance, app availabiltiy, and build quality all at a similar or lower price, and by 2011 it will be too late and Apple will have too much market share and they won't have the clout in the industry they have to force other devices on carriers.