[Natsu]

You can find a good summary of the patents & verdict here:

http://www.zdnet.com/the-verdict-is-in-samsung-vs-apple-7000...

You are correct that it concerns trade dress, but the rounded rectangles were more significant than you give them credit for being. The ZDNet summary helpfully lists the design features at issue for each patent. I'm listing only those that contain rounded rectangles; there were seven patents in all:

Design patents infringed?

For design patent D'677 (rounded rectangle, edge-to-edge glass, thin bezel, horizontal speaker for phone): Yes for all but Galaxy Ace.

For design patent D'889 (rounded rectangle, edge-to-edge glass, thin bezel for tablet): No for all.

HN eats the links to these patents from the original summary, so I put them below:

http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677

http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889

[danielweber]

Given that Apple failed on D'889 (and D'087, which was also about rounded corners) it's pretty clear that Apple does not own "rounded rectangles."

"Rounded corners," by itself, is out-and-out not protectable by a design patent, since they are functional. But as part of a larger body of work they can be. The classic design patent is Coca-Cola on the Coke bottle. It didn't stop other people from using any individual feature of the Coke bottle, but the sum of the features (or close enough) triggers the design patent.

Also, I don't believe there is an official list of just what is covered by a design patent. ZDNet is applying their own editorial judgment there; that's not wrong, but it's also not binding.

[Natsu]

> Given that Apple failed on D'889 (and D'087, which was also about rounded corners) it's pretty clear that Apple does not own "rounded rectangles."

A couple things. First, you left out D'677 (which everything but the Galaxy Ace infringed). I was being generous in leaving out D'087, though I probably should have listed it for completeness.

Second, I believe that list is the design features were argued over at trial. The problem isn't just whether or not they own them, but whether they believed that they do. When they claimed to own them in court, that made it fair game for criticism.

[danielweber]

I think we're talking about two things:

1. Did Apple think they owned the patent? Yes, you're right that they did. The fact that they lost still leaves them open to accusations of patent abuse, but statements like "Apple won on their patent for a rectangle" are factually wrong.

2. Does Apple think they own "rounded corners"? I'm pretty sure they didn't believe or argue this. I would love to see a citation that Apple claimed that rounded corners on a rectangular device, by themselves, was something that they could stop competitors from including.

Patents are a thorny issue, but the facts matter. HN can't have a meaningful discussion about them if we toss facts out the window because it makes a better narrative to say things like "Apple patented the rectangle." If the situation is really bad, there should be no need to exaggerate it or make stuff up.

[Natsu]

> "but statements like "Apple won on their patent for a rectangle" are factually wrong."

Who made that statement, exactly? The furthest grandparent post said that, "Apple patented a rectangle, and I haven't seen much rise in awareness." and I've said nothing more than to give the jury's own verdict on three of Apple's design patents.

For the second point, I've already said that rounded rectangles are just one part, though the original post by marcoamorales is incorrect insofar as it implies that the design patents cover only that. It's pretty much inarguable that Apple asserted design patents with rounded corners as a key design feature. It was important enough to the claims that there was a prior art search for that specific element:

[1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120817121126489

The fact that they were such an important part of that design patent is probably what helped Samsung win on the D'889 issue, one of their few victories in the entire verdict.