You can get a design patent on the look of icons, but not a (utility) patent.
Despite the name, a design patent is very different thing from a (utility) patent, which is what people normally think of as a patent. In many ways it's better to think of a design patent as a class of trademark.
If we want to reform the "patent" system, then at the very least we need to be clear what we are arguing against. Different types of IP - patents, design patents, copyright, trademarks, trade dress, etc. - were intended to achieve very different social objectives. Each has its own sets of strengths and weaknesses, and each has been distorted by regulatory capture in different ways.
I think it's important to understand these differences, and something of their history, to be able to make effective improvements.
Despite the name, a design patent is very different thing from a (utility) patent, which is what people normally think of as a patent. In many ways it's better to think of a design patent as a class of trademark.
If we want to reform the "patent" system, then at the very least we need to be clear what we are arguing against. Different types of IP - patents, design patents, copyright, trademarks, trade dress, etc. - were intended to achieve very different social objectives. Each has its own sets of strengths and weaknesses, and each has been distorted by regulatory capture in different ways.
I think it's important to understand these differences, and something of their history, to be able to make effective improvements.