Let's say we're in a world where the ice cream cone isn't invented yet. People buy ice cream in cups. A company then decides, "Why don't we sell ice cream in cones?" Meanwhile, their competitors sees that, and starts selling ice cream in cones too. The company that invented it then patents it, and after a few years, the patent is granted. They sue competitors in the most patent plaintiff-friendly court, and then gets the sale of ice cream in cones banned, except if they made it. They refuse to license out the patent because they want a monopoly on ice cream. Now, let's take a look at Apple doing the same thing. Xerox PARC could have stopped Apple's Macintosh and Microsoft's Windows because they own the patents for graphical user interfaces and mouses. But they don't - they license the patent out, they get a fair licensing fee to recoup R&D costs and make some profit, and everyone benefits. Competition increases, innovation increases, and the end result is better than a customer. You can't deny that competition benefits you. Why doesn't apple release a 5th Gen iPod Touch with a faster processor? Because there's virtually no competition and they don't need to. If there were no Android, your iPhone 4S won't be a dual core 1GHz. It won't have Siri, it won't have 3G, it won't have an app store. Because Apple doesn't need to spend money adding those features that drives up the cost of the device if you have no choice but you have to get an iPhone if you want a smartphone. Apple wants that. Apple doesn't want competitors. Nobody wants them, and that doesn't make Apple evil. But Apple is unethically using the patent system to hinder innovation and competition. And you suffer.