From where I sit it almost looks like they are handed out regardless and the buck is passed onto the legal system to do what the patent examiners should have done to start with.
That is an opinion
It is a good opinion at that. You are not the only one that wants silly patents invalidated and tossed. Many patent attorneys feel the same way. But it is very complicated and sadly, often requires a court decision.
As an aside, I am trying to find a new logo and the last thing I will do is use clip art from the web. I fear a challenge because there is no reliable way to tell if the clip art I find is legal due to so many sites that simply post things they are not allowed to post; offering for sale things they have no right to sell.
We can only hope the courts are fair.
Consider this trademark issue: "Harley-Davidson's most recent endeavor to secure trademark protection is not only its most unconventional, it is also arguably, the most unusual and provocative trademark application ever filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). On February 1, 1994, Harley filed a registration for a trademark, then already in use, with the following description: "THE MARK CONSISTS OF THE EXHAUST SOUND OF APPLICANT'S MOTORCYCLES, PRODUCED BY V-TWIN, COMMON CRANKPIN MOTORCYCLE ENGINES WHEN THE GOODS ARE IN USE." Put simply, Harley was attempting to trademark the sound of its motorcycles; which, of course, begs the question, can a manufacturer trademark the exhaust roar of its motor vehicle?"
Sounds odd and silly, but the sound trademark is tied to other things like the design of the engine and its crankpin. Quoting their lawyer, "These details are critical because the "unique" Harley-Davidson sound owes its existence to the common crankpin V-Twin engine design. Joseph Bonk, Harley's trademark attorney, has noted that the design results in a syncopated, uneven idle which, when simulated verbally, sounds like "potato-potato-potato."
So it is possible that a Japanese bike that sounds like a Harley could be in violation of existing patents. For casual observers, protecting the sound is silly, but it is tied to other things like engine designs and associated patents.
NBC protected three musical notes, so there is precedent for this kind of protection.
Consider the act of selling anything on the web. There is no shortage of patents that cover that activity. Amazon, eBay, and others would never tolerate being told to cease and desist their e-commerce activities.
For the record, I choose to ignore these patents and associated claims. But do I have that "right?" Not sure. I seriously doubt the vast numbers of web users are aware that their activities might be in violation. The courts, if it went that far, would likely agree with me.
Or not, perhaps.
Well ,the common consumers are least (according to me )bothered about law suits and patent laws .It just another news for them.To tell you the truth I wouldn't think of law suits when buying a phone. 
