And if the "invention" is obvious, developers (and users) really shouldn't have to pay the cost to license it.
1. What if the design is trivial itself? So trivial that there are no trivial changes to make?
2. If trivial changes is all that's require to avoid the patent, such as change a solid line to dotted line, then why have the stupid design patents in the first place?
I could maybe understand such a thing for the entire application, but just a small insignificant part of the overall design? It's stupid.
1. Not sure if something trivial (e.g. an empty circle for a button) would be eligible even for a design patent.
2. The solid and dotted lines are just to indicate the claimed design vs the rest of the product respectively. Potentially the dotted lines in one patent maybe claimed as solid lines in a separate design patent.
I wasn't referring to the lines in the claim, but in the design. I was saying; for instance, if changing a solid line in the design to a dotted line may get you past the design patent, then they are worthless to begin with.
The Samsung case showed us that even a trivial match like rounded corners was enough to establish infringement, though.
I never said there weren't other elements, only that it took little more than rounded corners. The complaint uses a lot of words to say very little, as there sure aren't many solid lines other than those rounded corners when you look at the patent. Note that the dashed lines aren't counted. And this minimalist design is apparently worth nearly $1 billion, something I simply don't agree with at all.