I'm all for protecting the rights of creators - especially when some of the patents involve a big development expense. It looks to me like Google may have something that actually deserves a patent here. That being said, I simply don't know what exists on cameras these days; I do know they have some kinds of multi-flash technology, but how that compares - I'm clueless.
If it ISN'T more than what we see on some digital cameras, the patent system has failed us; if it is, then it's all good.
The same applies to Apple patents. Some of those just look too much like what already existed to most of us, and it upsets us to see people take credit for things they didn't really create - especially when it means financial reward is being given to an entity that doesn't deserve it. The failing isn't in that we have patents, or even in a company like Apple, it's in the ability of the office to determine the worth of submitted patents, if it allows these things to happen.
As lay people though, we have to remember that we are looking at these things from the outside, and it's really hard for us to judge them fairly. Patents are a good thing, sloppy administration of them is not, but in most cases we aren't well enough informed to truly know what is fair and what isn't.