Replacing it wouldn't protect them from infringement lawsuits, and a 30% stock downslide because of a 0.021% outlay on their $100B cash hoard is a little too insane even for a conspiracy theory.

>Replacing it wouldn't protect them from infringement lawsuits

Why not?

Because the infringement has already happened. You don't just get to say "oops - I'll stop now" and get away free and clear. You still have to deal with the fact that you did infringe, and compensate for the damages that infringement did to the company and licencees involved.

So the choices are:

* Have a long and involved court case that you will almost certainly lose, where the press will continually poke you about the obvious and direct comparisons to the Samsung/Apple suits.

* Pay compensation/licencing fees, have the story become a non-story in a day or two, carry on using great piece of iconic design.

No brainer.

I'm sure the average share holder cares more about a rounding error of a settlement than the departure of a major executive, iPhone 5 stock levels, or the uncertainty of legal battle fought on many fronts.

$99 design! I think the major reason Apple became the Apple is because they stayed as far as possible from $99/design concept. Reading the following about the original design will give more clarity why Apple copied it one to one: "...Since then [1944] it has become a Swiss national icon,[2] included among examples of outstanding 20th-century design by both the Design Museum in London and the Museum of Modern Art in New York City". I hope Apple will pay to MOMA too, who else will support the Art:)?

"upsetting news for an average stockholder"

Apple's average stockholder is not who you think it is.

Besides, the company holds >$100B in cash and has managed it's finances exceptionally well in the last decade. I don't think any serious shareholder will bat an eyelash at this.