Maybe I'm slightly off topic here, but...
Once upon a time there was a principle that you could patent a new invention only if it was not something that others familiar with the state of the art might reasonably be expected to do if faced with the same problem you were solving. That principle has been so ignored by patent officies throughout the world (and especially by the USPO) that it might as well not exist. Another principle was that you couldn't patent something that already exists in nature. That too appears to have have been abandoned quite a long time ago. There was also a principle that you couldn't patent mathematics, or scientific discoveries, because these weren't inventions; that principle too has apparently been abandoned. There a principle that you couldn't patent something that you couldn't demonstrate - also blown away. And of course there was a principle that you couldn't patent something that someone else had invented first and made public, which was killed off (by the courts and the patent bureaucracy, not by the legislature - the bureaucracy ruled that a filed and published draft patent didn't constitute prior art if was allowed to lapse, and the courts upheld them) in the USA at least 140 years ago. You could copyright (quite different from patent - but law on copyright and design rights is drifting sharply towards nonsensical grants and nonsensical rights, just as with patents) an original work, but not an idea (as opposed to its expression) or anything that was part of everone's ordinary experience, like a geometrical shape that was commonly encountered.
My personal view of the current situation is that it is unsustainable. We need to make massive changes in intellectual property law. We need to make patent law and recover the old discarded principles of patent law described above and do the same for copyright law and design rights law, so that we see no more claims that providing rounded corners on a rectangle make something which anything else involving such a rectangle shall be deemed to have copied. It should be mandatory for patent holders to provide licenses (on pretty cheap terms if they are not exploiting the patents themselves, otherwise on terms that are reasonable in the light of the likely effects on the patent-holders' businesses). The period of the various intellectual property rights should be adjusted (downwards) so as to provide a decent incentive for creation but not a ridiculous one that damages society. If we do these things, and make the bureaucracies and the courts enforce them, intellectual property law will once again encourage innovation, instead of stifling it as it currently does. If we don't do these things, only lawyers (and lazy bureaucrats, and IP trolls) will benefit.