[FredZarguna]

Not just that, but a patent was intended to protect innovative ideas [this isn't one] and things which are not obvious [this is] or for which there is no prior art [because, duh, nobody has ever sold a square little watch before.]

The Framers of the Constitution are spinning in their graves like dervishes over the kinds of things that can now be copyrighted, trademarked, and patented. It's a disgrace, and Apple is one of the worst offenders on the planet.

[Swordmaker]

This is why the Framers did indeed intend such coverage. . .

Chinese Apple Watch Knock-Offs running simplified Android OS, offered for
shipment into U.S. for as low as $25 per unit in bulk

With a design patent, the FTC can interdict these frauds at customs.

[Moltke]

Look at it the other way around: there’s no reason for a competitor to use the *exact* (or *very* close - not just ‘somehow similar’ in general) same design of the Apple product for their own. The design patent makes sure that it doesn’t happen.

There’s a much higher bar for utility (technical) patents to get granted, for good reasons. But that does not invalidate the usefulness of design patents (most other countries do not even refer to them as ‘patents’ which lessens the confusion).

[DiogenesLamp]

The Framers of the Constitution are spinning in their graves like dervishes over the kinds of things that can now be copyrighted, trademarked, and patented. It's a disgrace, and Apple is one of the worst offenders on the planet.

I too think the copyright and patent systems have been degraded and abused by vested interests. They no longer resemble their intended function, and now serve mostly to empower rent-seekers and their descendants.