This is why trade dress battles are so important to Apple. Try
introducing a soda in a container that’s easily mistaken for a
Coke bottle and see how far “har har har, you can’t patent
curved glass!” gets you as a defense. If somebody makes a
product that can be easily mistaken for an Apple device, then
Apple is going to do whatever they can to get that product either
off the market or changed. And this is why Josh Topolsky is wrong
when he says it doesn’t matter if a reviewer fails to mention
when a competitor makes a product which is clearly following
Apple’s design language. This isn’t about individual features
and who did what first. If a company consciously attempts to make
you think is that the new Apple thing? when you look at their
new thing, and you know that’s what they’re doing, it’s
noteworthy. It’s noteworthy because it’s a little sleazy.
One reason why the iPhone has no indicia on its front face — no Apple logo, no “iPhone” name — is that the device itself represents the iPhone brand.