More like people don't like that Apple somehow got a government monopoly on rectangles or page turn animations.
This is an extremely biased statement. Apple didn't get a "monopoly" on rectangles. Furthermore, you heard Samsung's false statement and processed it as fact and failed to actually research exactly what patents Samsung was convicted of infringing upon.
The D504,889 patent is for the iPad's edge-to-edge glass, rounded corners, and thin bezel (which I assume you were referring to). This patent was NOT found by the courts to be infringed upon by Samsung. The patents that were found to be infringed upon were: 7,844,915 for single-finger scrolling and two-finger zooming, while number 7,864,163 claims tap-to-zoom technology. As for the design patents, D618,677 claims the iPhone's edge-to-edge glass, speaker slot and display border and D604,305 claims the grid-style icon layout in iOS.
The only exterior design patent infringed upon was the '677 patent. Which didn't even patent rectangular design, but rather - edge to edge glass, speaker slot and display border. Design elements which were blatantly copied by Samsung without gaining licensing and are not necessary to produce a mobile phone. They also awarded Trade Dress Claims for the iPhone - feeling that a number of Samsung mobile phone devices were similar enough to dilute Apple's brand. Again - not related to rectangles or rounded corners, but mainly on grid UI design, look and feel of UI, as well as edge to edge glass, speaker slot among other distinct Apple design features.
The main thing to realize here is not just that the jury felt they were similar enough to award, its that they found the infringement to be WILLFUL. Meaning they found evidence (in Samsung executive email exchanges) that pretty much compared their smartphones to the iPhone and pointed out where Samsung could improve. Many resolutions were simply, "iPhone has xx and looks much better. We must adopt this design/strategy, etc". I believe that without such clear cut evidence, Apple would not have won the '677 patent or Trade Dress Claims.
Last edited: