Originally Posted by Tsumi
Yes I read the links, and looked through all of it.
This is the definition of ornamental design straight from the US Patent Office:
Basically, ornamental design can refer to an entire device, or just parts of it. The way to tell is that solid lines designate what is being patented, and broken up lines designate what is not.
So, based on the fact that the solid lines represent what is being patented, let's look at 087.
Figures 1-8 patent the rectangle shape with the rounded corners, with the circular button in the middle at the bottom of the phone.
Figures 9-16 patent the rectangle shape with rounded corners, and the screen making up almost all of the front.
Figures 17-24 patent the rectangle shape with rounded corners, and the horizontal speaker on top in the oval shape.
Figures 25-32 patent the rectangle shape with the rounded corners, screen, and circular button.
Figures 33-40 patent the rectangle shape with the rounded corners, speaker, and circular button.
Figures 41-48 patent the rectangle shape with the rounded corners, screen, and speaker.
D677- as I said patents the black front, but also the screen taking up the entire front of the device and the horizontal speaker on top.
305- you seem to be right here in that it patents the icons as well.
So for almost every touchscreen phone, they would be violating 087 based on figures 9-16. That's just ridiculous.
You also must not have heard of sciphones. My relatives got a sciphone. From a distance, it looks pretty much identical to an iphone. Disregarding different physical dimensions (which these patents don't cover anyways), the layout and icons are pretty much the same, much more similar than any Android phone. Why isn't Apple going after these blatant Chinese knockoffs?