That is the only question that matters (beyond just "software" patents,) And there is a lot of work by a lot of people that try to answer the question. Search ssrn for work by authors like Risch, Merges, Allison, Lemley, Mann, Zeidonis, Etro (just for starters) and you'll see that the issue is much more nuanced and complex than what the common narrative tells you.

So does the narrative matter? Well, let's look at the rest of your comment.

You mention a "doubly linked list" patent. That patent is not the greatest ever, but it is not a doubly linked list: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-for...

(Note that even the highest rated answers there get it slightly off.)

Then, pinch to zoom; I'm not sure what you refer to by that, but the last time Apple's patent was mentioned on HN, its scope was also grossly misrepresented.

Your reply makes two things clear:

1) you have strong emotions about this topic; and

2) you don't really understand how these things work.

And seeing other comments on HN over many years, I can safely extrapolate another thing:

3) your condition is common to the vast majority of commenters here.

At least to me it seems clear why the narrative matters.