I disagree. They have either invented, reinvented, or improved products, hence the success of the products. iOS has introduced many new features, many copied by competition. It's funny you talk about fanatics when it seems to me you are the anti-Apple fanatic.
Apple has few inventions to their name, at least after Wozniak left.
The majority of their 'inventions' were either things like the mini display port, or a manufacturing process for unibody designs (Which is ridiculously wasteful).
They did
not invent the computer, they made
one of the first that could be considered a home or personal computer.
They did
not create the MP3 player, they only took an existing idea and presented a better design and interface.
They did
not create the the laptop, netbook or ultrabook. They made a nice design, however it was similar to a previous design by ASUS or another company (I forget which exactly).
They did
not create the first smartphone. Very few things about the iPhone are original: The design is based off of the LG Prada, and take design cues from previous phone form factors; the icon designs were copied, however the icons themselves are standard icons used for years in design. Apple should not own rights to them; the majority of other points are of similar nature. The iPhone was revolutionary for sure, however it was never original.
They did
not create the first tablet. The first tablet was the gridpad (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRiDPad) back in 1989, made by
Samsung. This is not to say that it is the first concept however, as there were concepts for tablets all the way back in the 1940's. Apple didn't even come up with the form factor themselves, as there is prior art in the form of Window XP tablets made in China, as well as Android tablets that used older versions of Android (2.1 or before); they weren't that great, but they are still prior art.
The biggest problem I have with Apple is how when they enter a niche, and offer a popular product they feel that they should
own the rights to everything relating to that niche. They patent everything, even things that they didn't create, and do so broadly so that any similar functionality would fall within their patent. This is exactly
why software patents should not be allowed, or if so they should remain narrow, so as to not stifle innovation.
I'm not saying Samsung was not wrong to copy the iPhone/iPad, however the fact is that I feel they modified things enough and that there is enough prior art that the case is completely and utterly frivolous. The designs aren't unique, and have much prior art (Including Samsung who had devices that could easily show an evolution towards what would become the SGS1, SGS2, and SGS3).
The issue with software patents (Which is mostly what Apple uses) is that they can be used so broadly, and it stifles innovation more than hardware patents. This is especially true when you talk about things like gestures and touch screen interaction, and especially 'universal search' (How this ever got patented is plainly ridiculous, and shows the biggest issues with the patent system). With hardware patents, if they're something that are essential to a technology, you have to supply them as a FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) patent. There is no such thing for software patents, and there really needs to be, especially when talking about interaction with a screen.