Whether or not Samsung is going through some sort of "crisis of design", the pernicious nature of what Apple is doing is quite underestimated. They are trying to claim minimalism, the lack of distinction, as their own. It is the minimalism and efficiency dilemma.

Fact of the matter is that current state of technology places limits and barriers that should not be permitted for patent or copyright right up against. In fact, this effect will only concentrate even more as the physical nature of technology and innovation disappears as things get smaller and more concentrated.

With technology and design starting to crowd up against a barrier of physical form-factors, it becomes increasingly apparent that patenting and copyrighting should proportionally protect the change, the innovation, the added value; not the absolute.

The iPad and iPhone are not, in any significant way, unique. They are more marginal variations on existing technology and design than not. Capturing popular attention and leveraging inherent human desires is what garnered the devices and Apple so much fame and fortune, not the innovation or creativity. There is nothing unique about straight lines, exact curvature, shininess, sharp edges, and uniformity. Apple simply OCDed the shit out of their products. I applaud their designs and their configuration of technology, but much of it is not sufficiently unique to warrant patenting or copyrighting.

Where do you draw the line, and will Apple (or any other corporations for that matter) be allowed to draw that line right around their interests, products, and designs in a self-serving manner...essentially corporate gerrymandering?

Tongue-in-cheek, so no need to tell me how stupid I am, but we may as well allow for the patent on anything that is different than what existed prior if we are going to allow patenting and copyrighting of what is defined by hardly more than the technological limitations. Should one be allowed to patent a tablet that is 5 mm thick because it is thinner than a 6 mm tablet?

When you patent fundamental constraints, you might as well patent and copyright going from point A to point B and sue everyone that doesn't go through point C to get to point B. You are essentially trying to force complexity and inefficiency because you have hijacked simplicity and efficiency.