compared to what? in the case of the "round corners", the Germans ruled in favor of not-infringing, while the US ones awarded Apple $1B+...
In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.
A US design patent covers the ornamental design for an object having practical utility. An object with a design that is substantially similar to the design claimed in a design patent cannot be made, used, copied or imported into the United States without the permission of the patent holder. The copy does not have to be exact for the patent to be infringed. It only has to be substantially similar.
They understood the license just fine back then
The article is quite light on details, I wonder on what exact grounds they filed their claim.
That makes no sense to me. Licensing copyrighted work is pretty standard, and it must be in France too? The GPL is a license, which is indeed a contract. But surely people license (enter into a contract between copyright holder and user which grants certain allowed uses) copyrighted work in France routinely?
But if there is a contract in place, then copyright law no longer applies, and you instead have to resolve any disputes as if they were violations of a contract.
The difficulty being that the GPL allows anyone to enter into a contract without even consent of the other party, and the contract law courts may not see that as a valid contract.
No, it doesn't. Voluntarily, publicly offering the GPL as license terms is consenting to others accepting that offer.
Even the makefile had a reference to stockfish.