庭審大戰揭開蘋果神秘面紗 Court battle peels away the Apple mystery @ 【精英翻譯】的部落格

縱然每天都要面對有關新一代iPhone或iPad的傳言與猜測拷問，蘋果公司(Apple)總是拒絕談論未來將要進行的新產品發布。

Struck by a daily onslaught of rumours and speculation about the next iPhone or iPad, Apple always refuses to discuss future product launches.

出人意料是蘋果新產品發布中必不可少的元素。蘋果與韓國競爭對手三星(Samsung)正在加州法庭上演訴訟大戰。來自蘋果高級管理層的證言證實，保持神秘能給蘋果帶來價值數百萬美元的免費媒體報導。

Surprise is an essential ingredient for Apple’s unveiling of new devices. It generates millions of dollars’ worth of free press coverage, as testimony from senior Apple executives in the technology group’s California court battle with its South Korean arch-rival Samsungshowed.

但蘋果與三星之間的知識產權糾紛減少了可供蘋果選擇的營銷策略，也有損於其依賴神秘感的策略，因為三星取得並向公開法庭提交的證據披露，蘋果去年曾就推出一款尺寸較小的iPad產品進行過討論，如此一來就打亂了蘋果的一些計劃。

However, Apple’s battle over intellectual property rights has undermined its arsenal of marketing strategies and reliance on secrecy as evidence obtained and submitted to the public court by Samsung has spoiled some of its plans with the revelation of discussions last year about a smaller iPad.

美國加州聖何塞市某法庭上週聽取了平時極少接受公開採訪的蘋果管理層的詳細證詞，證詞中細致介紹了這家科技巨頭的產品研發以及市場營銷戰略。

A San Jose courtroom last week heard detailed testimony from Apple executives who rarely give press interviews, detailing the development and marketing strategies behind the technology industry’s biggest hype machine.

一向神秘的蘋果公司在法庭要求下透露，去年iPad和iPhone的市場營銷費用合計5.35億美元，其中用於iPad的營銷預算在2010年翻了一番，超過iPhone的廣告支出，而這些數字在財務報告中通常是不披露的。

The secretive technology group was required to reveal that it spent $535m marketing the iPad and iPhone last year, with the budget for its tablet computer doubling over 2010 to overtake the smartphone’s adspend, figures it does not usually disclose in financial filings.

在長達四周的庭審之後，由九名男女組成的陪審團將決定iPhone和iPad究竟具有多大的創新性。蘋果指控三星抄襲其產品設計，而三星則指出，在iPhone問世之前，外形為黑色鏡面圓角的觸屏智能手機就已經存在，蘋果的知識產權保護主張無效。

The nine men and women who make up the jury in the four-week trial are tasked with deciding how novel the iPhone and its tablet successor really were. Apple accuses Samsung of copying its designs while Samsung argues that touch-screen smartphones with black glass faces and rounded corners predate the iPhone, invalidating Apple’s claimed intellectual-property protection.

三星在法庭上採取的戰術旨在向陪審團展示，蘋果試圖從競爭對手身上尋找靈感，同時也乾擾了蘋果的新產品發布計劃。

Samsung’s courtroom strategy interferes with Apple’s launch plans at the same time as aiming to show the jury that its US rival looks to competitors for inspiration.

蘋果負責iOS系統(iPhone和iPad的操作系統)的高級副總裁斯科特•福斯托(Scott Forstall)，以及全球市場營銷主管菲爾•席勒(Phil Schiller)在法庭上透露，蘋果開發iPhone的想法始於2004年。福斯托和席勒均為蘋果執行董事會成員。

Scott Forstall, Apple’s senior vice-president of iOS, the iPhone and iPad operating system, and Phil Schiller, its head of worldwide marketing, both members of the executive board, told the court that the idea for the iPhone originated in 2004.

上周五陪審團聽取了福斯托的證詞。福斯托自1992年起就和史蒂夫•喬布斯(Steve Jobs)一起工作，曾領導Mac目前所用操作系統OSX的開發，並於2004年加入了一項旨在開發平板設備的高度機密行動。

On Friday, the jury heard from Mr Forstall, who had worked with Mr Jobs since 1992, and led development of the current Mac operating system, OSX, before joining a top-secret initiative to develop a tablet device in 2004.

福斯托向陪審團成員們展示了多個平板電腦原型，並表示蘋果在iPod上取得的成功引發了對該公司下一步應如何行動的討論。

Jurors were shown several tablet prototypes and were told that Apple’s success with the iPod had prompted discussion about what the company could do next.

開發平板電腦的行動中途曾暫停數年，研發力量被轉移至“紫色計劃”(Project Purple)——這就是後來的iPhone的代號。

The tablet initiative was put on hold for a few years and development efforts were transferred to Project Purple – the code name for what would become the iPhone.

來自三星法律團隊的質詢和證據顯示，蘋果最初曾考慮在iPhone上使用自身原創的iPod點觸輪(click wheel)設計。三星公司的律師向法庭出示了蘋果內部對一款帶環形按鍵三星手機的討論記錄，並指出這表明iPhone開發團隊曾從作為其競爭對手的三星身上尋找“靈感”，希望藉此減弱蘋果的專利主張。

Questioning and evidence by Samsung’s legal team revealed that Apple had originally discussed using the original iPod’s “click wheel” on the iPhone. Internal Apple discussions about a Samsung device with a circular keypad were shown to the court which, Samsung’s attorney argued, showed the iPhone’s developers had looked to its South Korean rival for “inspiration” – part of its attempt to undermine Apple’s patent claims.

福斯托其後表示：“我從未指示任何人抄襲三星的任何東西。”

“I never instructed anyone to copy anything from Samsung,” Mr Forstall said later.

席勒在上周五齣庭作證時，介紹了蘋果如何圍繞新產品構建起龐大的營銷攻勢。在2007年1月首款iPhone手機剛剛發布之時，蘋果沒有投入任何資金進行廣告宣傳，而是抓住喬布斯發布這款產品時引起的狂熱大做文章。席勒稱，全情投入的蘋果員工們承擔起了“蜂鳴營銷”的任務，並在電視節目以及電影中爭取到了植入iPhone產品的機會。

During Mr Schiller’s testimony on Friday, he described how Apple builds the hype around new products. Immediately after the first iPhone was launched in January 2007, Apple did not spend any money on advertising, instead trading on the excitement when Mr Jobs unveiled the device. Dedicated Apple employees are charged with “buzz marketing” and securing product placement in TV shows and films, Mr Schiller said.

他表示，其後，隨著6月份首款iPhone正式發售期的臨近，蘋果啟動了覆蓋電視、廣告牌以及平面媒體等多種渠道的廣告宣傳攻勢，教給消費者如何使用這款新手機。用於iPhone宣傳的廣告總支出從2008年的9800萬美元猛增至2011年的2.26億美元。

Then closer to the June launch date, Apple began a TV, billboard and press ad campaign that taught people how to use the new device, he said. Total advertising spending for the iPhone has grown from $98m in 2008 to $226m in 2011.

蘋果對iPhone手機用戶進行的市場調查顯示，用戶對iPhone外觀設計以及用戶界面的評價頗高——這是蘋果反擊三星的主要論據。席勒指出，在這種情況下仿製產品造成的危害尤為突出，因其可能使消費者感到迷惑。

Apple’s market research into iPhone owners showed that its customers valued its design and its user interface highly – key planks of its case against Samsung. This approach makes copycat products particularly damaging, Mr Schiller argued, because customers might become confused.

在交叉詢問中，三星的法律團隊力圖說明在iPhone問世之前，就已經有了可以播放音樂和視頻的觸摸屏手機和移動設備。

In cross-examination, Samsung’s legal team sought to show that touch-screen phones and mobiles which could play music and movies predated the iPhone.

三星還給出了其他市場調查結果，稱其表明美國消費者在購買智能手機時，對產品設計的重視程度低於價格等其他因素。

Samsung went on to show other market research, which it suggested showed that design was a lower priority than other factors, such as price, when Americans buy smartphones.

但蘋果的一個關鍵秘密仍然沒有公開。在福斯托被三星的律師問及有關新一代iPhone的具體細節時，蘋果的公共關系團隊表現得非常緊張。三星的律師指出，新一代iPhone的外觀設計可能發生變化。

But one Apple secret remained intact. Apple’s public relations team looked on nervously on as Mr Forstall was asked by Samsung’s attorney about details of the next iPhone, which his questioner suggested would have a different design.