On a related note, here's a comparison between Apple's San Francisco and Google's Roboto, along with FF DIN and Helvetica: http://www.fontshop.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/comparison...
In so many industries we talk about here there would already have been a stream of C&D letters and injunctions would be filed in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Souther....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...
There's a similar situation with clothing, IIRC, which explains the prevalence of brand logos.
IANAL, obviously.
Most fonts though (TrueType and OpenType) have a hinting language in them which is code and it is copyrightable since it is computer software. This means you can't just copy DIN font files themselves and distribute them freely without permission.
You can however take the outlines from the font, recreate the hints manually and then distribute it.
That said, there are such things as design patents and of course, trademarks. Design patents aren't used too much, but do protect the design itself. Trademarks of course allow you to protect the name.
Would Apple have paid to modify and use FF DIN in their devices?
[1] http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/martin-lexelius-core/malmo-sans...
Typography is an extremely constrained design space with tons of little details and small differences. If you constrain yourself to readable type suitable for use on screen the space gets smaller, still. That’s why I love it. You don’t have to – but you should also then probably not offer up your opinion on fonts (which you didn’t, but many people do, in that same sneering and really annoying way some people talk about contemporary art, for example).
I mean, if you think something is not interesting why add to that uninterestingness by saying something that itself is so utterly uninteresting.
I’m really a fan of amateur thinking and talking about art because I am also quite clueless about art (contemporary and all other art), so I think it’s great to talk about it even if you are clueless, but I do try to avoid clichés and if I don’t get something I assume that I either don’t know the context (context does tremendous things to elevate all human endeavors and can make something that seems superficially boring or worthless very interesting) or that there really is nothing to it – but I don’t really possess the ability to judge what’s what.
I think that’s a very reasonable assumption to make when looking at contemporary art and you are clueless about art – and you also avoid dealing in clichés as a result.