I don't agree with that article, it tries to talk right what is clearly bent. Lawsuits are just another form of competition.
The hard way is designing, marketing and producing a highly valued product or a service. The easy way is to use the extent of the law to prohibit competition. Legal fees of hundreds of millions are still peanuts compared to the billions of dollars that go into designing a better product.
Apple clearly nailed the hard part on the head with the iPhone and the iPad. To prolong it's succes, they're preventing others from doing the same thing. It's killing other peoples billion dollar investments, with just a couple of millions.
Do I hate Apple for it? No. The framework is there, it would be folly to condem anybody for trying to maximize the lifecycle of their product.
Is it the best outcome for the consumer? No. Consumers are getting the short end of the stick. They get a company wich has basically a monopoly on every aspect of what makes a good device. Driving up the costs up and maximizing profits, their bank account is proof you are paying too much.
So, who do I blame? I blame the entity who hands out the power to protect aspects of a succesfull product. If you want to drive innovation, shorten the lifespan of products, let other people copy it! Then you will see the shift from legal competition to competition in the marketplace.
Many will claim patents drive innovation, that it protects the small businesses from the big players. While the spirit is clearly nobel, the effects are devastating.