The most basic one is the "one-click" Amazon patent. I'm unclear on how that relates, aside from being a patent. Most of Apple's patents on forms of interacti

The most basic one is the "one-click" Amazon patent. I'm unclear on how that relates, aside from being a patent. Most of Apple's patents on forms of interaction with touchscreens or other touch-sensitive devices are little more than reflections of physical interaction with objects. What objects? This is software. Just because an interface element behaves in a way that feels, to your senses, realistic, does not mean that there exists in the real world an obvious and patent-invalidating object of prior art. If a menu scrolls one way but not another, you might have an intuitive grasp of what it is doing, but that does not mean it is a copy of a real thing. (Or if it is, where is the real object? Where is the prior art? Where is the obviousness?) If a menu bounces, it isn't a actual thing that is actually bouncing: it's a conscious decision by the programmer or designer to make it behave in a way that happens to be read by your senses as a "bounce". And why is that, in your view, not patentable? If Apple had made physical objects that behaved the same way but via mechanical means instead of electronic, that would be patentable, too. Should that not be the case?