There's nothing novel here and in fact it should have been filed as a functional patent then swiftly declined as obvious and ordinary.
A rectangle with rounded corners is a standard shape, and there's no way it is worthy of a design patent. The unique Coca-Cola bottle shape is worthy.
There needs to be some career downside for such abusive legal maneuvering.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a1/34/84/a13484ad1...
Rounded rectangles are at least as old as history itself.
Note that I'm not attempting to argue over where that should be a valid patent or not, just why it is so bare. If there were more specifics, you'd see them on that page.
> 1. The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described.
Design patents do not last as long as utility patents, typically only 14 years, rather than 20.
Design patents are generally much easier to design around than utility patents -- you could use a sufficiently different corner radius, put a curve in one side, add a hood ornament, etc.
Most notably, and key in this case, the measure of damages is different: Disgorgement of profits for a design patent, versus a reasonable royalty for a utility patents.
The issue in this case was profits on what--the whole phone, or just the component of the phone to which the design is applied. A reasonable reading of the statute suggested the former.
The patent holder would have a hard time defending their patent if it relied on some arbitrary level of precision. Either it is useless because there is no diameter and thus too vague or it specifies a diameter and is useless to the holder.
A meaningful patent on corner shape would have some reason for the shape. Perhaps the ornamentation related to the company's logos or style in some way or they deduced that something special about the size and shape of some special rounded corner has some better function... Perhaps the ideal corner shape for insertion into skinny jeans without sacrificing screen size (could be a minimum level of fu).
Prior to that style phones came in a dizzying multitude of shapes, sizes, and styles. If there was a consideration for fitting into jeans surely Motorola or Nokia or Palm or RIM would have taken it into consideration.
The Blackberry device is another iconic design. It had rounded corners, but it also had other distinctive design features that made it obviously not an iPhone, such as the somewhat unique bottom curve on the device.
Samsung went out of their way to copy. I can't believe people are defending Samsung here. It's an insult to actual innovators.
If I sound argumentative it's not intentional, I know sometimes multiple questions in a row like that can be taken the wrong way.
They've made a narrowly defined design decision, and are only defending that, as oppose to a very generic obvious choice.
The less providence can be quickly, reliably, and consistently determined by consumers, the weaker will be feedback mechanisms in the market. When knock-offs flood the market, the original company will have less incentive to manufacture products with better quality, longevity, or whatever characteristic is desirable in the market. That's because they capture fewer of the dollars consumers fork over for those differences.
It follows that there's nothing per se illogical about making such fine distinctions as fractions of an inch. What matters is if the distinction serves the purpose of make the product distinguishable in the market to the degree that optimizes the market function of design patents.
It's not an engineering process nor is it intended to be one. In particular, the results are not predictable or reliable.