Which was also an equally inaccurate depiction of the patents in question.
In the lawsuit, they used very broad design patents of the general iPhone shape that were later invalidated due to obviousness and prior art leading to a cut in the awarded compensation.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/us-patent-office-consider...
Regarding the invalidated patents, if you read the blog and the Office Action within ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/274897046/15-08-05-Non-final-Rejec...), this was due to the priority date being moved forward due to a technicality in claiming priority to their own previously filed patent. As a result, previously excluded prior art came into play, including Apple's own previously issued iPhone design patents, which was actually on simply different aspects of the exact same design. As such, although the patent was invalid, it is inaccurate to say the design itself was "obvious" per se (although I really don't understand how obviousness works in the world of design patents).
So it doesn't lose its silliness when you understand it better.
... amongst other elements. This is what Apple's complaint stated:
>"Closely comparing Apple's patented design with Samsung's products reinforces the conclusion of substantial similarity. Samsung copied every major element of Apple's patented design:
a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded corners;
an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the display screen and substantial borders above and below the display screen; and
a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front surface above the display screen,
where the rectangular front surface is otherwise substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional button area centrally located below the display."
Certainly not the most earthshaking design, but a lot more than "rounded corners".