In my field, which is academics, it doesn't work that way. Two people independently from each other can prove a theorem, yet the theorem will be credited to both of them, not to the one who published it first.
That makes perfect sense.
Such independent invention is incredibly common in software development, as many people will come up with the same set of solutions, given the same problem.
That's why most non-FRAND software patent cases are about accidental infringement, not outright copying.
Ok then, it's pretty wrong to say that Apple didn't invent something just because there's prior art. If Apple didn't know about the prior art, they invented that thing, no matter what. Just that the patent is invalid.
Correct, and that brings up a very important point that needs to be made:
ANYONE WHO SERIOUSLY DOES TOUCH PROGRAMMING WILL EVENTUALLY INVENT THE SAME THINGS INDEPENDENTLY.
(Actually, that probably applies to any software specialty.)
For example, when NeoNode decided to make a touch phone back in 2002, they came up with slide-to-unlock. It wasn't rocket science when they did it, and it wasn't rocket science when Apple reinvented it years later. It was simply something that you come up with if you spend long enough time developing an all-touch device, and need a way to make the darned thing stop going off in your pocket. Duh. Trouble is, how many patent examiners have spent years developing a touch device? My guess is, zero.