The calls for patent "reform" came at the same time google decided they wanted to get away with violating apple's patents (and now google has sued Apple to try and do so).
Near as I can tell, and from what I've seen in history, patents have worked out pretty well.
They protect the small guy more than they do the big guy, for instance, though this is often ignored or the opposite is claimed.
Why do you want to throw out a system that protects small innovators in favor of allowing a major company-- google-- to get away with stealing innovations?
Apple was ripped off when they invented the GUI, so they knew they would need to protect themselves and they patented their inventions in the iPhone.
This is exactly what the patent system was designed for.
If Samsung wins, then we need reforms to strengthen the system. But if Samsung loses then justice will have prevailed.
What small guy benefited from the patent system in developing and marketing their invention?
You can always try to spend more money to get a product created sooner, marketed better... but that doesn't imply that the innovator deserves a sanctioned monopoly, even if temporary.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here, is the need for a better framework for determining who deserves what. If such a framework is not found, our next best alternative is a non-framework (e.g. no patent system), because history shows us that the abuse of legislated restrictions on innovations lead to great stagnation of innovation, and abuse is rampant.