Only because the system already allows for patents that shouldn't exist because they aren't novel enough.

See, for example:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter...

Jefferson was clearly dead set against the situation you are describing -- granting patents with only incidental modifications to the system. But then again he would be rolling in his grave if he saw (and had the modern knowledge to understand) the completely inane, obvious (to practitioners of the art) shit we've been granting patents on since about the late 1980s.

Patents have two main sections that are very different from each other: 1. The claims set out exactly what inventions the patent protects. They are the part that must be novel and non-obvious. When writing a patent, you want your claims to be as broad as possible (while still satisfying the novelty and non-obviousness requirements) to maximize the protection that the patent offers. 2. The specification teaches a person skilled in the relevant art how to make/use the claimed inventions. This section includes specific details about possible implementations of the inventions. This section can discuss many different variations, and should make it clear that these are only some of the possible variations, not an exhaustive list.

Using a simplistic example based on your child comment, a sentence in the specification might state "The phone may be black, or gold, or any other suitable color." (In reality, the specific color is not likely to be addressed at all unless it plays a role in the claimed invention.)

So you're saying there's absolutely no harm in being specific, because that's a different section? That's new to me, and if correct, I retract my claim above. Thanks.

That's how it should be.

Well, imagine apple puts all information necessary to build an iPhone into a patent. Then Samsung builds a phone identical to the iPhone, except it's green. If the patent specifically mentioned black, gold, but not green, then a green phone might not infringe.

My point is that too specific can also be a drawback.

Too specific is only a drawback to the patent holder. And a single-patent iPhone patent would cost a fortune to file anyway. Having overly specific patents is not remotely a drawback to the rest of us.

If apple is discouraged from inventing an iPhone because they won't be able to defend the patent against minor changes, that's a loss to society.

If you concede that patents in general are good, then you should also agree that sometimes, it's better for a patent to be general.

I'm more in the "everything is a remix" camp, at least as far as software and design patents are concerned. If Apple didn't create the iPhone, someone else would have made something similar.