Benz patented a three wheeled car with a tiller.

The Ford Model T came out more than 20 years later.

You can read about the differences between it's controls and those of contemporary automobiles here: http://www.scvmtfc.org/drivingmodelt.pdf

Maybe this time the rules are different and innovation won't occur over the long term. But I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm not sure if I understand your comment fully as it relates to mine so I could be going off in the wrong direction with this, but here we go anyway...

I don't think that's a fair comparison. As our technological ability increases then amount of time for innovation and creation decreases. I'm not surprised at the lag of innovation from your Benz to Ford example as part of the issue would have been manufacturing capabilities as well as the economy of the time. I'm not surprised at all that in modern times we get better capable phones about every six months.

But for your example. If Benz received a patent for steering a moving vehicle by means of a tiller I would have disagreed with that since all they did was take the idea from a boat. But what I'm describing is if Benz did get such a patent in a manner of today's software patents then Ford would not have been able to use a steering wheel on his Model T without licensing from Benz for their patent on "method to control the direction of a moving object" that failed to describe how that method actually worked. Well, assuming said patent lasted long enough to be an issue for Ford.

In general I have no problem with the idea of software patents, as long as they show exactly how it works including code and why it is unique enough to deserve protection.

Your premise that the pace of technological change is more significant today compared to 100 years ago is not supported by objective data. Furthermore, the differences between contemporary automotive controls and those used by Benz and Ford illustrate just how far today's mobile interfaces probably are from the stable standards of the future - i.e. pinch to zoom may be an improvement on PalmOS, but still equivalent to the Model T's reverse pedal or hand throttle.

The premise that Apple's patents are technologically significant to the point that their enforcement is holding back innovation is ludicrous. Android's interface is the antithesis of innovation - that's the basis of Samsung's prior art defense.

Having recently used a feature phone to talk to my father because the minutes were about to expire, I question the premise that new generations of smartphones are better as telephones. After several years of smartphones, talking on the feature phone was a far more pleasant experience. It was light weight, and I didn't have a piece of glass up against my cheek for an hour while I talked.

I can't necessarily disagree with your statement about progress as I have no data but I do imagine that things move much quicker once you have someone's shoulders to stand on.

Sorry, it seems to me that if one has a patent that is so general in nature that it covers the outcome of a method without actually explaining how it works would in fact stifle innovation for that aspect of any related industries. I have a patent on steering moving objects, yes your steering method is completely different than mine but my patent covers everything about steering moving objects therefore you need to stop your work. Then how does one innovate? Hope not to get sued, hope the patent owner will license to you, or just wait out the patent? Or is my analogy not explaining my point?

Your experience with a feature phone versus a smartphone is just your own personal preference and experience. You say a feature phone is a far more pleasant experience as a phone, I say a smartphone is a far more pleasant as a phone and gives me more features to boot. I'm not saying that my opinion on the matter is worth more than your opinion but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.