but anyone who tries to patent rounded courners and then sues deserves to lose patent lawsuits.
Apple did a lame job in protecting their IP: patenting smart corners, instead of something more vital about their type of product, such as the concept of an integrated app store, and the kind of applications they brought to the platform, but the iPhone, their implementation of the smartphone truly was an innovation that got stolen by now competitors (e.g. Android).....
I'm not sure why they bothered with superficial patents on things like the shape of the device's packaging, which was probably the least-important aspect of the product beyond initial marketing and making the device look 'cool' to prospective buyers.
They have a design patent on the shape of the packaging and the look of the device because that is how business works. Ford have a design patent on the way the Mustang looks. Coke have a design patent on the way a coke bottle looks. A design patent is an incredibly common thing and it is subtly different from a method patent (such as the processor one that Apple has infringed).
It seems on slashdot, however, that Apple is apparently held to a different standard about how it conducts business - somehow a design patent on the iPhone is bad, yet the design patent Google holds on the Google Glass, or the Nexus, or the Chomecast, or Ford's design patent on the Mustang, or the Fiesta, or the Focus and Samsung's design patent on their TVs, and Galaxy line of smartphones or Coke's design patent on the Coca Cola bottle are all ok.
But no, Apple isn't allowed to have design patents - that somehow makes them evil.