Are you saying bounce back and pinch to zoom solve no practical problem? Are you absolutely sure? If so, you could: 1. Look at the Background section of the pa

Are you saying bounce back and pinch to zoom solve no practical problem? Are you absolutely sure? If so, you could: 1. Look at the Background section of the patents for a hint. Pretty much all patents have them. 2. If you don't trust the patents (and I won't blame you), ponder why Apple put those interactions in there. Or, even if they weren't just copying it, why Android had it too. 3. Or you could try to use a mobile device without those features to find the value in them. Would you want to use a smartphone on which you have to manually distinguish between scrolls and pinches every time? Or one without bounceback? Let me tell you, I have a Galaxy S2 without bounceback, obviously due to Apple's enforcement. It has that blue glow workaround. Personally I find it pretty inferior. Heck, even Windows Phone has a better workaround, the "elastic" over-scroll, one that does not seem to infringe Apple's claims. Look at that! Forced innovation through workarounds! And of course, MS went ahead and patented that too, so Android was out of luck for a while. Furthermore: are you sure that their implementation does not count as a process? And are you sure those implementations can do anything without machines? I'm curious, because these are questions the Supreme Court itself struggles with. (Not to mention the perennial flame wars on patentlyo.) BTW, that quote is from the second episode. Can you find a single mention of the word "claims" in the original episode, the one I was talking about in the context of "5000 patents on the same thing"?