There was a whole HN thread throwing up prior art about the linkification patent (and also on Reddit). Linkification was being done in the '80s, based on one of the programs that someone managed to scrounge up in the thread, and the '90s as well. No patents issued - people just did it.
The fact that these programs were written tells us that software writers innovate regardless of whether patents are issued for their work or not. That's the nature of software (and technology in general). The difference is, some software makers don't expect to protect their new features from competitors with patents. That's the crux of it, imo.
I see your point. My counter-argument would be that it solved a unique touch-screen problem of a lack of keyboard/mouse and a lack of an easy way to highlight text.
I think the thing I'm hung up on is that Apple stormed into the phone market and did a whole bunch of smart things that nobody had thought of, but are obvious in retrospect.
I don't agree with software patents, but I can't help but hesitate before agreeing that it's beneficial to the industry to let Apple's competitors wholesale copy their work (even the small things).
The fact that these programs were written tells us that software writers innovate regardless of whether patents are issued for their work or not. That's the nature of software (and technology in general). The difference is, some software makers don't expect to protect their new features from competitors with patents. That's the crux of it, imo.