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