I'm not sure clock designs can be considered "iconic" unless they're 16 storeys tall and in the middle of London.
DOESN'T MATTER, IT'S PATENTED.
Isn't that what Apple's been banking on, that they patented stuff first? Well, this time, that red seconds hand with the rounded end looks too similar to a patented design. I mean, I understand red seconds hand, but to have a round shape at the posterior end of the seconds hand? DOESN'T MATTER, IT'S PATENTED.
If this doesn't stick when rounded corners did, then somethings definitely wrong with the patent system (which definitely favors who can pay more).
Yeah probably not.
I'm getting sick of the "YEAH! FUCK APPLE!! THEY'RE DICKS!!" mentality. When faced with something like this Apple is going to try and settle out of court. Its not a case of protecting their property or an integral part of their OS. Its about the design of a clock which they probably assumed had enough widespread use that any Design Patent is essentially void. The clock design is definitely recognisable to me but I can't think where from.
So it's okay for Apple to claim "mainstream use" on something they obviously did NOT DO FIRST, but still okay for them to claim the opposite on something mainstream like rounded corners?
Rounded corners are definitely recognizable to me, but I can't think where from.
Oh, yeah. Furnitures.
Does that count?
Also, it really shouldn't matter if one thing is used mainstream or not... if it's patented, it's sue-able, it's just a matter of whether the concerned party would sue or not (or whether they'd be settled out of court or not).
I'm afraid no argument in favor of Apple is valid here. If Apple wins a sue over this, then your patent system is definitely flawed, and favors the money over the righteous.