> protection against things that could be reasonably
> mistaken for them
That sounds more like trademark law.
That said, Apple has to incur a bit of penalty here for being first-to-market. Since the iPad was the first-to-market and the most widely recognized brand, it would not be uncommon for someone to see any tablet (regardless of design similarities) and say, "Is that an iPad?"
It's like Henry Ford claiming that no one else can make cars at the genesis of the Model-T because cars in general are associated with the Ford Motor Company. It would be ridiculous to say that anything with 4 wheels and a combustion engine might be mistaken for a Ford, therefore Ford is the only one that can make cars.
Ironically, Ford fought tooth and nail against an overly generic patent for automobile (similar to a design patent because the guy who owns it is a lawyer and never built an actual model before getting the patent) and won.
Design patents are far more like trademark law than utility patents. And, frankly, the wiggle room for arguing infringement is far less than for Trademarks.
Samsung is not in court for having the same rough shape, or bezel, or frame, or dock connector, or packaging as an iPad. It's there because it has all of these things.
They can literally only lose if the court determines they were making a KIRF.
That said, Apple has to incur a bit of penalty here for being first-to-market. Since the iPad was the first-to-market and the most widely recognized brand, it would not be uncommon for someone to see any tablet (regardless of design similarities) and say, "Is that an iPad?"
It's like Henry Ford claiming that no one else can make cars at the genesis of the Model-T because cars in general are associated with the Ford Motor Company. It would be ridiculous to say that anything with 4 wheels and a combustion engine might be mistaken for a Ford, therefore Ford is the only one that can make cars.