This one is close to me. Apple does come off as ridiculous, but it is an interesting question of where can you draw the line on patents. Apple came out with the first of a lot of things, including the first smartphone, and it shaped an entire industry. Apple now ultimately sells it's brand though, which can't be copied, and its features are pretty irrelevant to that. Whether or not something is too simple is always a very vague argument though. If it is really simple to design, then why wasn't everyone already doing it. I think patents should pertain to intellectual property with a degree of uniqueness, and anyone who gets too close to that idea should have to pay or not be allowed to use it. Ethically, there is a balance you have to find with allowing patents for protection and allowing new ideas to still flourish. A utilitarian approach might look seemingly small patents like a swipe to unlock screen as obviously benefitting more people if it was universal than opposed to one company monopolizing them. On the other hand, deontologist might argue against it wondering if it could be universalized that these small things don't really matter. I do think your second question is a good point though. At the very least a company should have to pay for the lawyers of the opposing side if the bring them into a needless lawsuit. Especially as costly as it is to go to court with a large company like Apple.