[nirvana]

You're confusing utility and design patents. They are different things and have different purposes and requirements.

Really, you're not the only one, but it is shameful that at this point in time so many people still don't know what patents are, yet comment on HN.

[ElliotMingee]

Fair point; I was too quick to comment there. I'm curious though: are you familiar with the reasoning behind the development of design patents? I've done some light research and not turned up much. It seems that trademark and copyright already provide fairly expansive coverage for non-functional IP, so I don't quite see the intent behind the design patent laws.

[catch23]

Here's a small article to get you going: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.as...

Here's a brief excerpt:

"Design patent secures for their owner a fourteen-year right to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing the claimed product and, thus, allows time to build up secondary meaning necessary to acquire product design trade dress protection. Trade dress protection can last for as long as product design trade dress remains in use and continues to identify the source of goods to consumers. "

And other one on infringement:

"Infringement of the design patent is found when an ordinary observer, giving the attention of a purchaser, perceives the patented and the accused designs as substantially the same, in light of the prior art."

In the court opinions on Gorham v White (1871):

"It is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same -- if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer and sufficient to induce him to purchase one supposing it to be the other -- the one first patented is infringed by the other."

This is why if Samsung creates a product whose design is substantially similar to Apple's, then infringement may occur. This is why the jury consists of "ordinary" people who are the right people to make the judgement call. Too many HN readers are complaining that the jurors should be technically minded because they are thinking of utility patents, and not design patents. You also fall in the same boat, but I'm guessing most HN readers don't even realize there is such thing as "design patents" and "trade dress protection". This is why lawyers are paid to do the arguing, while we sit back and yell from the sidelines.

[ElliotMingee]

Ah, thank you very much. With this context, the verdict does make more sense now. I have one last question for you though: I've seen mention of design patents for a bezel around a screen or rectangle with round corners, however should a design patent not cover the entire device? It seems if the idea is to prevent consumer confusion, devices should be viewed holistically, not piecemeal.

[catch23]

Unfortunately, I'm not an IP lawyer. This is why lawyers exist -- they know the historical reasons for why one should file a design patent piecemeal.

My guess is there must have been a prior case where one patented an entire device and the patent was not able to penalize an infringer that may have had a slightly different device. It's possible the defense may have shown that the patent is only valid if the devices are in the exact same category. But who knows, this is just a guess.

I should also note that I'm a different person that the one whom you were replying to in your previous threads.