Look Apple invented the iconic iPhone shape, the packaging, the layout of the icons on the screen, ...
The shape, packaging and icon layout have all been done before. There's a huge difference between actually inventing something, and making it popular. Apple mostly does the latter.
Mind you, I think they deserve all the credit in the world for bringing all these things into a nice package. Their problem is that it only becomes protectable trade dress if they also advertised those things to the point of being publicly associated with their product alone. They did not do so, and now it's too late to.
...the stock icons(weather, stocks, mail, etc.). Why shouldn't these "look & feel" patents be just as strong as utility patents? Apple owes a huge % of their iPhone profit to the design aspect, maybe even more then the utility side.
1. Apple's design patents on their icons are as strong as any other design patent. However, no one (including Samsung) directly copied them.
2. Apple's design patents on their phone/tablet shapes have the problem of describing functional features... and those CANNOT be protected by a design patent. E.g. having rounded corners, which are more comfortable to hold than sharp corners, is not protectable.
That judge who denied the injunction against Samsung is a ignorant fool.
Which judge? The judge in the Netherlands, the superior court judges in Australia, or the judge in California? They all denied Apple a preliminary injunction against Samsung.
They did so partly because some patents seemed too obvious to hold up under re-examination, and partly because Apple's lawyers failed to provide any evidence that Apple would suffer without an injunction.
I realize all this doesn't seem to make sense from a fairness standpoint, but legally it does.
