Ok, but then let's say you are entirely right. Then the jury is bound to interpret the patents broadly and an outcome like this is inevitable as far as a jury

Ok, but then let's say you are entirely right. Then the jury is bound to interpret the patents broadly and an outcome like this is inevitable as far as a jury verdict goes (I think something like this happened in the Oracle-Google suit). What then for the patent system? What this does, IMHO, is it pushes all the interesting questions to the judge and the appeals court. These are questions like: What is the scope of each patent? Did the jury find that each patent was violated within the scope determined after trial? (Unknowable, gives judges an opportunity to decide the case as they see fit.) What this does, if you take it that way, is put the jury in the role largely of hearing demurrers. A verdict of infringement becomes more or less a low barrier to entry to the interesting portions of the case which will all be decided by judges.