I think people are interpreting my words the wrong way purposely. The Apple patent is not innovative enough as in not making a leap, logical or intuitive, that others cannot make. This is proven by a hacker, without access to a multi-million dollar research budget, who arrived at the same conclusion. Note that this does not belittle his efforts in any way, rather, it's a praise to him and it's belittling Apple's research department for being matched by a tinkerer.
I believe that the only inventions that should be patentable are those that are were born of such a leap of thought that they demonstrably cannot be reproduced without access to the original research material and/or reverse engineering the device itself. It is on this belief that I base my argument of "not innovative", since the hackaday article clearly shows that a simple hacker can independently arrive at the same solution Apple arrived at, without accessing the Apple research documentation or reverse-engineering a prototype (if prototypes even exist of this device).