Wait ... so they got a patent to be able to assign different passwords to different access profiles (defined as sets of applications and or functions)? It's said such obvious functions get patents and obstruct progress.
Well with some tech companies (you know who) starts off by abusing "non-essential patents" and use it as leverage to force competitors to exit the market or to pay a hefty fee as a "tax" while essentially doing nothing, all other tech companies have no choice but to start protecting themselves by pre-emptively getting their own "non-essential patents". Current USA decision to treat "non-essential patents" as more valuable than "essential patents", is unfair, especially when it creates a situation that a patent on a shape is more valuable than an algorithm to accurately convert wireless signal to data. I wouldn't even want to mention "non-essential patents" should be eliminated as this is going to be adversely affect such you-know-who company and USA government will never allow it. So at the very least, "non-essential patents" should have been subjected to the same treatment as "essential patents". So say, if a company A want to trade an "essential patent" with company B for a "non-essential patent", company B cannot say no to it because "non-essential patent" must also be licensed for always equal and reasonable fee, instead of the special treatment it has now that it is completely up to company B to demand any fee they want.