The patent wars are nothing but bad in several ways.

Innovation

The reason patents exist is to encourage innovation. But it's become obvious over the past few years that software and design patents have the exact opposite effect: they discourage and undermine innovation. Innovators are often small and scrappy. They're afraid to introduce new ideas, lest they be sued by established players who can afford expensive lawyers. Actual litigation doesn't even have to occur. The threat alone is sufficient deterrent.

Engineering vs. Design

I can't think of a single thing Apple has actually invented. They certainly didn't invent any of the things that made them famous, or that they are currently selling. The mouse, the graphical user interface, the portable music player, the Unix based operating system, the mobile phone, tablets, were all invented by others. Apple copied them, improved them, refined them. But they did not invent them.

Apple doesn't invent stuff; they copy and refine other people's inventions. Apple's forte is design, not engineering. Design is patenable. The problem is, design is art with no bright lines to distinguish influence from imitation. Because of this, rules like "novel" and "non-obvious" must be required. When Apple patents a rectangular shaped device with rounded corners, such rules clearly have been ignored.

Technology Culture

For decades, the tech industry has owed its rapid rate of innovation to a culture in which everyone uses ideas from others and takes them in new directions. Apple has bad social behavior: they copy the work of others and take it in new directions. Yet they don't allow others to do the same with their work. The hypocrisy would be amusing if their aggressive patent lawsuits weren't destroying the innovation culture that drives the technology industry.

Open vs. Closed Systems

iOS is a closed, proprietary system and Apple has absolute control over the hardware, the OS, and every app that runs on it. Android is a free open source operating system and anybody can download it, write apps for it, and distribute those apps for free.

Two different approaches, each with its pros and cons. Both deserve whatever support they can get from consumers. But if these patent lawsuits continue, consumers won't get to make that choice.

Opportunity Cost

Billions are spent on trials & lawyers instead of building better products. On top of that is all the innovations that have been squashed both directly and indirectly, the cost cannot be measured. There is also the opportunity cost of companies building up defensive patent portfolios. It's a war of mutually assured destruction. Everyone loses, companies and consumers, as the trial lawyers pocket their huge fees walk away laughing. They're laughing at us for being so stupid. To be more precise, it's not intelligence this industry lacks - it's wisdom. We're not idiots, we're fools.

Solutions

At a minimum we need to tighten up software and design patents by enforcing rules about novelty and non-obviousness. It may be that's sufficient to solve the problem. If not, we may need to abolish software patents entirely. But first let's at least start applying the rules that should have been applied all along, invalidate existing patents that violate these rules, and see what happens. Even those who argue over whether software patents should exist, can agree this is a good first step.