Bad idea
I don't have a dog in the Apple/Samsung fight at the moment, since I don't own any of those devices. Never even handled one. My phone has a cord and a handset. Still, the verdict strikes me as a very bad idea for the 99.99999999% of Americans who do own those devices.

Compare with automobiles. What would we have if Apple-style design patents had been upheld in the early days of autos? At first we'd have four or five conflicting ways to drive a car. Some brands would have the driver in the middle, some on the left, some on the right. Some would have steering wheels, some would have levers, some would have foot controls. When you got your driver's license you'd have to test on one brand, and you would then be more or less stuck with that one brand. It wouldn't take long for the more popular brand to become the ONLY brand, because everything from roads to licenses to traffic signs would be designed with the more popular method in mind. The less popular brands would have no legal way to adopt the more popular method, so they'd simply go out of business.

We did have those variations in cars at first, and the most popular brand (Ford) did in fact set the standard in most ways ... but there was no patent lawsuit involved. Standardization happened naturally and quickly, and all companies were able to pick up the standard without having to pay royalties or penalties.

Patents for the innards of machines or software make sense. There are many ways to design an engine, many ways to code an action. Some of those ways are more efficient, some more precise, some easier to maintain. Distinct companies can find ways to derive distinct advantages from their own methods.

Patents for ergonomics on a widely used consumer device don't make sense. They simply guarantee a monopoly.



Of course Polistra prefers the non-standard!
  ¶ 5:25 AM