The people who are downloading these 'toxic' apps in the first place simply aren't going to visit this site before doing so. Folks who are already aware of the risks won't need a site like this to illustrate them...so who is this for?

I don't claim to be an expert on patent law, but I'd say no. I believe you're only infringing on a design patent if your cosmetic changes are applied to the same general class of product. So if I make a PS3 controller that looks exactly like an xbox controller, that's no good, but if I want to make a bar of soap that looks like an xbox controller, I'm in the clear (unless MS has also patented the design as a bar of soap, which is unlikely). That might be incorrect, but it's my understanding of the situation.

Yeah! Screw big business! Let's get rid of patents so that when the little guy has an idea, there's nothing stopping those big businesses from copying and profiting off it! Nitwit.

Design infringement is exactly what the case is about, way to not bother looking beyond the 'Microsoft sues x' portion of the article. 'D' before a patent number means you're talking about a design patent. Functionality isn't the issue here, the issue is that Datel clearly ripped off Microsoft's patented cosmetic designs.

I love all the insightful comments people are making on this article. It's nice to know folks are making sure their positions are valid, not just deciding that Microsoft is always wrong, and that this is no exception. Anyway, the patents are all valid and Datel is clearly at fault, unless prior art exists that proves the patents are invalid in the first place, which is unlikely. MS is not claiming to have invented controllers or lights on controllers, that's stupid and you're stupid for thinking it. All six patents mentioned in the article are design patents. They have nothing to do with the actual functionality of the controller. Rather, they've patented the 'ornamental design for an object having practical utility', like the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle, or a new font. If I create a font and obtain a design patent, I'm not claiming to have invented text, only to have made a cosmetic change that does not have any impact on the functionality of the original invention. Even that PS3 controller that some other poster linked above infringes, because the design is what's in question, NOT the functionality.

You realize of course, that an answering machine still has to "pick up" the line, thus if it is indeed a computer calling only to verify that a number is valid, it will still find that yours most assuredly is?