Apple Marketing Chief Phil Schiller Appears On the Witness Stand in Apple/Samsung Damages Trial

[subsonix]

White shows dirt much faster. And white is the absence of color in the logo. Those who want to find fault will find fault. We see what we want to see, right?

If you want to argue about vacuums and phones that's one thing - if you have evidence to support your argument.

But commenting on a shirt color when there's a perfectly legitimate reason why the company would use that color is pretty silly.

The shirt color is only one detail in isolation, look at the entire store setup, packeting and look of in particular the original Galaxy then it's hard to claim it's a coincidence in my honest opinion. I answered that particular question because you asked, as if the answer was obvious (blue) while it's not.

 

[samcraig]

The shirt color is only one detail in isolation, look at the entire store setup, packeting and look of in particular the original Galaxy then it's hard to claim it's a coincidence in my honest opinion. I answered that particular question because you asked, as if the answer was obvious (blue) while it's not.

I didn't bring up shirt color - another poster did. I find that bullet point - both in context or out of context of the argument to be silly and for the reasons I explained. If you want to latch on to that as just one more piece of evidence - go right ahead.

 

[subsonix]

I didn't bring up shirt color - another poster did.

You asked the question, what color should it be if not blue? As if blue is the only possible color that would make any sense. To that I replied, in many ways white would make more sense and be more consistent with their brand.

 

[dannys1]

Yes - people were amazed. That didn't equate to sales at the start though. That was an uphill climb at first.

Yes this is true - I bought the first iPhone the day/minute it came out. There were TWO people in my store buying it (and I was one!) the staff didn't have a clue about it. They'd had 4 hours off for training as they were opening at 8pm...they'd eaten Pizza for it.

That was when Carphone Warehouse were forcing everyone to buy insurance for the iPhone and telling you they wouldn't sell it without the insurance, haha madness, they got in trouble in the end for that.

 

[kdarling]

"People don't buy items based on look."

I can't believe the amount of hypocritical nonsense you guys post.
You should try googling stuff like "counterfeit" "design patents" or "trade dress," you might learn a things or two.

Trade dress claims require proof that a normal consumer would be fooled into thinking that products were made by, or approved by, another company.

Just looking similar in shape and color isn't enough if there are other obvious clues as to the maker, such as the way that Samsung labels its devices.

Another requirement is that trade dress be a major factor in advertising. Apple failed to prove any non-registered trade dress infringement, because their ads only mentioned apps, not the design of their devices. (They never said, "Buy our tablet because it has a comfortable flat face and rounded corners!" And of course, there's no design protection for features that are functional.)

The law doesn't protect people who don't take normal care in purchasing. A consumer has the responsibility to use common sense, and the more expensive the item, the more buying care the law requires.