On patents in general, Wikipedia says: 'Typically ... a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable'

That doesn't answer my question, but in the interest of not stifling conversation, I pose the question of which of Apple's patent claims is not new, inventive, useful, or industrially applicable.

I don't quite follow you. Entirely my fault I'm sure - I'm exhausted

I can't say what criteria JoelSutherland applied in the parent post, but I think the general guidelines for patents are a good start for a discussion about the worthiness of Apple's claims