Current law, as upheld by juries lacking sufficient knowledge, disagrees with the intent of the law.

Patents don't cover ideas, they cover implementation. Literally if your way of implementing something is the non-obvious way to make something more efficient, you are granted the right to exclusive use of it.

Apple, by act of jury, now has a patent on the idea and not the implementation. The patent is on a capacitive touch screen, but is a jury going to uphold a patent if it is an optical touchscreen? What if I use pinch-zoom on my Kinect?

... in the sense that...?

It doesn't. It only seems to because people on HN, reddit, etc, don't know how to read patent claims.

Ah yes, that old canard. "No time to explain, but you're wrong."

Please feel free to respond to my post and tell me exactly how I misinterpreted that claim.

A claim is not a series of tubes...

Seriously, though, people on HN, etc, read claims far more broadly than a court would. They tend to see "rubber band effect" and think Apple patented all rubber band effects.

Claims start out broadly, and are narrowed by additional elements of the claim. "A rubber band effect THAT: a)... b)... c)..." You can't just ignore (a), (b), (c) because they narrow the boundaries of the claimed invention.

I just want to remind everyone in tech in the US that reading patents in your field is a very bad idea. The system is so dysfunctional that you may be infringing a lot (which should never have been granted, but you can't afford to fight) but becoming aware of them makes it "wilful" and can triple the damages from a suit. This doctrine is why Samsung's penalty is so high.

My reading is that the $1bn figure excludes any multiples for wilfulness.