

Design patents effectively work like brand protection. They literally only protect new aesthetics and ornamentation. The reality is that the iPhone did start the trend of rounded corner rectangular touchscreen phones. When it first came out, it was a fairly novel form factor for a phone. It didn’t prevent other form factors from being released. Like, the fact that it is now so ubiquitous that we take for granted smartphones look this way is a testament to its success. And, actually, plenty of phones did right angle screen corners. Design Patents are extraordinarily narrow things and, among the many issues with the current USPTO and the US IP system in general, it is probably the absolutely least problematic piece.
I would have to look into the actual patent and file wrapper, but presumably it didn’t cover just any rounding of rectangular corners, but as you said, a defined range.
Where bad patents get through prosecution, they are problematic, be they design patents or utility patents, but design patents in general are not even a blip on the radar of what needs to be fixed in our IP system imo. As a general rule of thumb, they are in fact fairly narrow. Meanwhile, pharma patents very much need focused and thoughtful revisions, and IP around software needs to be reworked from the ground up basically, creating special rules for patents and dropping the legislatively declared copyright framework entirely. The problem is that reporting on IP is fucking awful so people say things like “ohmyglob this design patents doesn’t even have real claims” even though that’s literally how they are structured and enforcing the right requires a pretty intensive investigation of the drawings and line patterns therein.
But, sure, I’ll give that maybe Apple’s design patent in this case was overly broad. I’m not particularly interested in defending Apple’s IP.