Brett's diatribe will require more study than what I have given it as yet. I will read again later.
It had me wondering which way it might conclude until the very end. There are hints but it wasn't really clear until the very end that he feels that this is ruling is harmful for innovation.
My own experience as a result of working directly with Apple is that they have hired MIT design engineers. I forget the exact name of the degree. I was going to call them human factors engineers, but they are more than that. They have studied electrical & mechanical engineering, but in a 4 year program how much of any of that can be crammed in?
On the other hand, even tho I would not expect them to know which end of an adjustable wrench is the business end, they have the advantage of benefiting about what is a good form & feel for human interface. In my software developing, just figuring out an intuitive menu system takes most of the time.
Patents are the world's worst reading problems. Add to that the variety of personalities writing the descriptions, their background, their native tongues, their understanding of the language of the patent not to mention understanding of the invention. I used to sit with a former manager, once upon a time far far away, and read thru competitive patents just to find holes that would allow another patent to be filed that tied up the competitor's! It really was not all that hard to do. Fortunately since those days, the patent system ceased awarding a patent for something that has not been built, cannot be built, or are just figments of imagination.
For those who are directly involved with patentable methods/devices there are choices.
1) get a patent ... not cheap & reveals to the world your idea in detail. Reference the above paragraph about finding holes in patents.
2) if there is already a patent for the invention, ignore it. Take the gamble that it will not be worth it to pursue by the patent holder. If prior art does not exist, then it is a real gamble. If prior does exist, then if the patent holder complains you can make them pay for your evidence of the prior art.
If prior art can be proven, and the patent holder concedes, they no longer can pursue you. The patent still stands tho ... it still takes money to get it revoked. BUT that is to your advantage as the "other" competition does not know that they too could get away with violating the patent.
3) if there is already a patent for the invention, fight it. Expensive. Can get the patent revoked if prior art can be proven to exist. But then all of the competition knows and benefits even tho they did not suffer any expense.
4) acknowledge the patent, go for licensing and pay the fee. Common.
Doesn't devising a method or invention that avoids an existing patent encourage innovation and creativity? And, building on someone else's (patented) invention also encourage innovation and creativity?
I think both Apple & Samsung are quite skilled at these choices and is apart of competitive business. I am also sure that both companies had priced the gamble into their products ... even tho future products will likely cost more with the patent fight as the excuse! This is not a new trend. I read recently about the farm patent battles that occurred at the end of the 19th century. There have been other relatively epic battles before that.
Mostly because there are many problems here, I want readers to identify which ones they see before I introduce what I see as the largest problem. 
