No they didn't. This is the same thing that happens any time anyone gets riled up about a patent. Someone glanced at the title or an image (in this case) in a patent application and assumes that is what the patent is for. In this case it is not, which is clear if you read the actual claims of the patent. The image is one of many existing third-party app screens used in this patent application to show apps where the invention in question (location-based notifications) might find use.

Apple did not "just do some Evil" here. This is simply bad reporting about someone's mistaken mis-observation. I don't know why, but when it comes to Apple, a lot of people's normal inhibitions for shoddy reporting become spectacularly lowered.

If I copied a business partner's design in line art and put it in a patent application somewhat related to the business partner's business it would be OK? I think not.

If you were patenting a TV and in your patent's example diagram, the TV showed Mad Men playing on it, would that be OK? I don't know if it would or not, but it sounds like they're trying to patent the TV, not Mad Men.

Since short fragments are allowed as fair use, one frame from a movie should be ok too. Whether you can copy a wireframe design of an interface under fair use is an interesting question though...

I was assuming that Apple knowingly tried to patent prior-art. _That_ I would consider Evil™. But apparently, this may not be the case.

Now, looking at the claims, this patent application could probably be attacked from another angle (such as obviousness).

The post title still needs to be changed.

That probably wouldn't have been enough. I paid more attention to the article than to the title itself. I would have been fooled anyway.