I'm not disagreeing, but be careful: there are utility patents and design patents, and (IANAL but) they seem to be very different beasts. The latter are almost

I'm not disagreeing, but be careful: there are utility patents and design patents, and (IANAL but) they seem to be very different beasts. The latter are almost more like trademarks than they are like utility patents. They're explicitly for non-functional aspects of an item. For example, there's a design patent on the shape of the PT Cruiser. You could say that the designers at Chrysler who made a 1930's-style car body didn't invent anything and that this is "mostly packaging", and you'd be right, but that's what design patents are for. AFAICT, they used design patents exactly as intended. Apple doesn't claim to have invented round corners, any more than Chrysler claims to have invented tall skinny engine grills. It's just a part of the whole, and it's not an "invention", and that's exactly what the system intended. (I don't make any claims about whether the system is being administered properly, or whether such a system should exist at all.)