Thanks for posting this. The people who were up in arms about Apple patenting rounded rectangles didn't seem to understand what a design patent is. I like the way you put it -- the rounded rectangles were indeed a significant aesthetic element that said "this phone is an iPhone."
I agree with everything you say up to the part "...making design arounds easier". One of the amazing things I learned from studying Apple's design patent strategy is that design patents can be quite hard to design around if you focus on the essential aesthetic elements. Those become solid lines in the design patent. Everything else is shown as a broken line. You only need to match the solid lines to have infringement.
Many people were very upset when it appeared that Apple patented the "rounded edge rectangle", but that turned out to be the essential design element that said "this phone is an iPhone". When Samsung mimicked that design element too closely to say "yeah, we are just like an iPhone too", they got burned even though parts of their phone design (the back) were different.
You are quite right that the interest level has risen for design patents lately. Design patents are appealing because they don't require sophisticated reverse engineering as they are visual, but have a shorter life span than utility patents and are limited to the non-functional aspects of products (i.e. the design itself)--making design-arounds easier.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.