Re: big surorise...
The firm you are saying Apple are siding with does not provide Apple with any revenue at all, since they produce their own (ridiculously expensive) tablet that only runs their voice software.
I feel for the parents here, but the way they have portrayed this is distasteful. Apple haven't taken anything away from anyone - anyone who has purchased the app still has the app, and if they had synched with itunes, would also have a backup copy of it.
What Apple have done is to pull this app from the app store, so that no new purchasers can buy it. I don't agree with this, they should have waited for a judgement, but the parents (and the reporters) play it as this:
She cannot ask us questions. She cannot tell us that she's tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him.
(direct quote from family blog)
Actually she can, as she already has the potentially infringing app and no-one is taking it away from her. The parents real concerns are:
a) They won't get any more updates from the app developer
b) iOS upgrades may make the app not work correctly
Note that neither of these things are guaranteed even if the app was still in the app store. There is no contract that says the app will get updates and fixes, or even compatibility fixes for the next iOS.
If the case is resolved in favour of the app developer, the app would be reinstated in itunes and all these things go away. If it goes the way of the patent holder, the app she has would be proscribed from the app store by the court order.
Either way, she has the app now, will continue to have the app until the end of the court trial at least, and the courts will determine whether the app is available or not after that.
If you want someone to get angry at, try Prentke Romich. They sell a nasty $10k tablet that kids with speech disorders require, bilking your tax dollars (EU) or insurance rates (US). They are the bastards in this story.