This is just one more proof of how messed up the patent system is. The problem now becomes: why was that patent awarded in the first place ?
When you are critiquing a patent on HN, you should bring some novel ideas to the table, rather than generally disparaging the patent.
D'889 is a Design Patent. See: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni... for what a Design patent is.
Your critique could likely take multiple approaches. You could critique the concept of a patent in general. You could critique design patents. Or, you could critique this particular design patent.
My question to you - have you read through D'889, (which you can look up here: http://www.google.com/patents)
By the way - I completely agree with you that D'889 is overly vague, covered a design that had prior art - most famously in kubrick's 2001. See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/24/139925696/sam...
What I'd be interested is why, in particular, a generic design patent covering nothing more than "Tablet" was used by Apple in anything more than a defensive posture. They didn't invent the concept or design - they just executed on it. Patents should be awarded for novel designs, processes - not on the filing of other people's published work.
Even if you allow that Apple could protect the iPad look, they've done it with a design patent that covers a different design. Then they've prevented the sale of yet a different variation. It appears like they cover a wide range of possible tablet designs with this patent rather than a single unique design.
Some images to illustrate:
http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+Apples+Patent+Didnt+Look+...
But since it's known now, Apple can just stop, pay everybody's legal bills and be done with it...