>>104
Nobody claims that the patterns are "new" or "original". On the contrary, they've been assigned the status of patterns because so many people have come up with them independently over the years. The placing of patterns in a textbook by the GoF is simply a formalization and recording of common knowledge, as well as the assignation of common names. This way people can speak about patterns with colleagues and co-workers and share a common vocabulary-- a very valuable thing when you're part of the group of folks working on a project that 1M+ LoC.
FWIW, patterns exist very independently of Java, also. The GoF's examples in their '94-'95 book, all deal with C++ and Smalltalk. The actual work defining the patterns occurred in the early-to-mid nineties, prior to Java's popularity.
So no, patterns aren't about Java 'tards fitting square pegs into round holes. They're about large groups of developers sharing a common vocabulary when discussing design in an OO world.