Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 999

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Seal, #2 Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Samsung's Experts, #3 Declaration of Joby Martin in Support of Samsung's Opposition, #4 Exhibit A to the Martin Declaration, #5 Exhibit B to the Martin Declaration, #6 Exhibit C to the Martin Declaration, #7 Exhibit D to the Martin Declaration, #8 Exhibit E to the Martin Declaration, #9 Exhibit F to the Martin Declaration, #10 Exhibit G to the Martin Declaration, #11 Exhibit H to the Martin Declaration, #12 Exhibit I to the Martin Declaration, #13 Exhibit J to the Martin Declaration, #14 Exhibit K to the Martin Declaration, #15 Exhibit L to the Martin Declaration, #16 Exhibit M to the Martin Declaration, #17 Exhibit N to the Martin Declaration, #18 Exhibit O to the Martin Declaration, #19 Exhibit P to the Martin Declaration, #20 Exhibit Q to the Martin Declaration, #21 Exhibit R to the Martin Declaration, #22 Exhibit S to the Martin Declaration, #23 Proposed Order Denying Apple's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Samsung's Experts)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/31/2012)

EXHIBIT L

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a )
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New )
York corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, )
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, )
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________)
APPLE, INC., a California corporation

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Expert Report of Michael B. Mazis, Ph.D.

March 2012

1.

I was asked by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel for the

defendant, to provide expert testimony in Apple Inc. v. Samsung. My objective is to
assist the Court in assessing whether the defendant’s use of eight icons used in Apple’s
iPhone and iPad products have attained secondary meaning in the marketplace. As part
of my assignment, I conducted a survey following well-accepted procedures in the field.
The survey was designed to determine whether the phone, messaging, photos, settings,
notes, contacts, iTunes, and iTunes on-line music service icons used in Apple’s iPhone
and iPad products have acquired distinctiveness. Thus, the survey sought to determine
whether smart phone and tablet computer owners associate these eight icons with one
company and whether that company is Apple.
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Credentials and Expertise
2.

I designed the consumer survey, and I oversaw all aspects of the data collection

and data analysis. (See Exhibit A for a detailed description of my professional
qualifications.) I have conducted marketing research surveys for over 30 years. I am
Professor of Marketing at American University’s Kogod School of Business, where I
have been a faculty member for over 25 years, including over 10 years as chair of the
marketing department. I have taught courses in consumer behavior, marketing research,
marketing principles, marketing management, Internet marketing, and marketing and
public policy.
3.

I received my B.S. degree in Economics from the Wharton School of University

of Pennsylvania, my M.B.A. degree from New York University, and my Ph.D. in
Business Administration degree, with a concentration in marketing, from Pennsylvania
State University. In addition, I was editor of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

2

from 1992 to 1995, and I was Associate Editor of The Journal of Consumer Affairs from
1998 to 2001. I am a member of the American Marketing Association and a member and
former director of the Association for Consumer Research.
4.

My research focuses on consumer perception of advertising, product labels, and

other marketing materials and on the impact of information on consumer perceptions. I
have published over 60 articles in academic publications, including Journal of Marketing,
Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, and Journal of the American
Medical Association.
5.

From 1976-79, I served as an in-house marketing expert at the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) and at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), where I evaluated
consumer perception of advertising and product labels, designed and conducted
marketing research surveys, and evaluated surveys submitted by companies seeking to
substantiate promotional claims. I continue to serve as a consultant for the FTC, having
served as the FTC’s principal marketing witness in FTC vs. Novartis in 1997, FTC vs.
Trans Union in 1998, FTC vs. Mercury Marketing in 2003, FTC vs. Telebrands in 2004,
and FTC v. POM Wonderful in 2011. In addition, I have served as a consultant on
marketing issues and on marketing research surveys for the FDA, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Department of Justice,
U. S. Mint, and the State of California. I have also spoken on designing consumer
surveys at conferences sponsored by the American Bar Association, D.C. Bar
Association, Better Business Bureaus, and American Marketing Association. (A list of
cases in which I have testified in the last four years is attached as Exhibit B.)

3

Compensation
6.

My work on this case is being billed at $700 per hour.
MATERIALS CONSIDERED

7.

I considered the following case materials:
x

Amended Complaint dated June 16, 2011

x

Apple trademark registrations for icons shown in exhibits 23-30 of complaint
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

8.

The principal objectives of the survey that I conducted was to assess the

secondary meaning of the phone, messaging, photos, settings, notes, contacts, iTunes, and
iTunes on-line music service icons used in Apple’s iPhone and iPad products.
SUMMARY OF METHOD AND FINDINGS
9.

I designed a survey using a well-established methodology for assessing secondary

meaning. The secondary meaning survey consisted of interviews with 2279 owners of
smart phones and/or tablet computers. Interviews were conducted in 36 shopping malls
across the United States. To assess secondary meaning, survey respondents were shown
a card with one of eight Apple icons on it. Then, they were asked whether they had seen
the icon on a smart phone or tablet computer. Respondents answering affirmatively were
asked whether they associated the icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet
computer, with more than one company’s smart phone or tablet computer, or whether
they didn’t know. Next, respondents who answered “one company” were asked to
identify that company. Respondents who replied “more than one company” were asked
to identify which companies. Finally, respondents were asked about their reasons for
associating the icon with the company or companies mentioned.

4

10.

The secondary meaning survey results show that, after adjusting for controls,

between ten percent and twenty-five percent of respondents associate Apple icons with
one company. For example, 24.6% of all respondents associated the iTunes icon with a
single source, and 10.5% of respondents associated the messaging icon with one source.
The median rate of single source identification across the eight Apple icons was about
13%. The proportion of respondents who associated the icon with a single source and
then identified that source as Apple is very similar to the proportion of single source
identifications. Using the same two icons as above and once adjusting for controls,
25.2% of all respondents associate the iTunes icon with Apple, while 13.1% of
respondent associated the messaging icon with Apple. The median rate of all respondents
identifying Apple as the source of the icons was again about 13%.
PROCEDURE
Survey Background
11.

The survey was designed in accordance with the generally accepted standards and

procedures in the field of surveys. It was designed to meet the criteria for survey
trustworthiness set forth in the Manual for Complex Litigation.1 These criteria are:
x
x

the sample chosen was representative of the population;

x

the data gathered were accurately reported;

x

the data were analyzed in accordance with accepted statistical principles;

x

1

the population was properly chosen and defined;

the questions asked were clear and not misleading;

Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth §11.493.

5

x

the survey was conducted by qualified persons following proper interviewing
procedures; and

x

the process was conducted so as to ensure objectivity.

Survey Universe
12.

The universe for the study consisted of individuals 18 years of age and older that

currently own a smart phone and/or tablet computer. The study was “double blind.”
Neither the interviewers nor the respondents were aware of the identity of the client or
the purpose of the study.
Data Collection and Sampling
13.

Data collection was conducted between February 17, 2012 and March 4, 2012.

The survey was conducted in 36 shopping malls across the United States:
Akron, OH
Albany, NY
Atlanta, GA
Baltimore, MD
Boston, MA
Brooklyn, NY
Cherry Hill, NJ
Chicago, IL
Cincinnati, OH
Dallas. TX
Dartmouth, MA
Denver, CO
Detroit, MI
Ft. Worth, TX
Greensboro, NC
Hayward, CA
Houston, TX
Kansas City, MO

Los Angeles, CA
Macomb, GA
Milpitas, CA
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis, MI
Moreno Valley, CA
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Orlando, FL
Philadelphia, PA
Portland, OR
Rochester, NY
Rockaway, NY
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Santa Ana, CA
Spring Hill, TN
Tampa, FL

Project Supervision
14.

Target Research Group, Inc., was responsible for supervising the data collection.

At Target Research Group, the project was supervised by Larry Herman, Senior Vice
President. Mr. Herman has over 30 years experience in the marketing research field.
6

Target Research Group, founded in 1986, is a nationally recognized full-service
marketing research company with headquarters in Nanuet, NY. Since 1999, Target
Research Group has been part of the MVL Group.
Field Procedures and Coding
15.

Target Research Group, under my supervision, prepared separate instructions for

the interviewers and for their supervisors. (See Exhibit C.) To ensure that the interviews
were conducted properly, a set of established procedures were implemented. Before
starting work on the study, each interviewer was required to read the interviewer
instructions, to attend a personal briefing at which interviewing procedures were
discussed in detail, and to complete a practice interview. Target Research Group was
also responsible for coding the questionnaires. After arriving at Target Research Group,
questionnaires were checked for accuracy and completeness.
“Screening” Questionnaire
16.

Interviewers used a “screening” questionnaire, which consisted of questions to

determine whether potential respondents were qualified to participate in the study. (See
Exhibit D.) A survey participant had to be 18 years of age and older, and he or she had to
have currently owned a smart phone and/or currently owned a tablet computer. Potential
respondents were excluded from participation if they had participated in a marketing
research survey other than a political poll during the past three months. Also, to
eliminate the possibility that individuals with specialized knowledge might be included in
the sample, potential respondents were excluded if they or members of their households
worked for an advertising agency or public relations firm, for a marketing research firm,
or for a manufacturer, distributor or retailer of cell phone or computer products. They
were also excluded if they wore eyeglasses or contact lenses for reading but did not have

7

their corrective eye wear with them at the time of the interview. Those potential
respondents who were qualified to participate in the study based on their responses to the
“screening” questionnaire were invited to participate in the study and were administered
the “main” questionnaire.
“Main” Questionnaire
17.

At the outset of the “main” questionnaire, interviewers provided an introduction

to respondents: (See Exhibit E.)
I am going to show you a card. Please look carefully at the icon that
appears on the card. The icon on the card may or may not have appeared
on a smart phone or tablet computer.
18.

Next, respondents were handed a card with one of the eight Apple icons or one of

seven control icons. Each control icon was matched with one of the Apple icons, except
a single control music icon was used for both the iTunes and iTunes on-line music
service icons. (See below.) The control icons were used to adjust for possible guessing
(“noise”) to questions posed to respondents about the Apple icons.
APPLE

CONTROL

CELL 1

CELL 14

CELL 3

CELL 6

CELL 5

CELL 2

PHONE ICONS

MESSAGING ICONS

PHOTOS ICONS

8

SETTINGS ICONS
CELL 7

CELL 12

CELL 9

CELL 10

NOTES ICONS

CONTACTS ICONS
CELL 11

CELL 4

CELL 13

CELL 8

CELL 15

CELL 8

iTUNES ICONS

iTUNES ON-LINE MUSIC
SERVICE ICONS

19.

Then, respondents were told:
Take as much time as you need to look at the icon on this card. Then, tell
me when you are ready to answer a few questions. There are no right or
wrong answers, I just want to know what you think and what opinions you
might have. If you don’t have an opinion or don’t know an answer, please
just tell me. Your responses will be kept completely confidential, so please
just tell me what you think.

9

20.

Now, respondents were asked, with the picture of the icon in front of them:
Have you seen or have you not seen this icon on a smart phone or tablet
computer or don’t you know?

21.

Of the respondents who answered that they had seen the icon before, half were

asked:
Do you associate this icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet
computer, with more than one company’s smart phone or tablet computer,
or don’t you know?
22.

To control for order bias, the other half of the respondents who answered that they

had seen the icon before were asked:
Do you associate this icon with more than one company’s smart phone or
tablet computer, one company’s smart phone or tablet computer, or don’t
you know?
23.

Respondents who answered “one company” were asked:
What is that company?

And they were asked:
What is it that makes you associate it with [the NAME OF COMPANY
previously identified was inserted]? Any other reasons?
24.

Respondents who answered “more than one company” were asked:
What are these companies?

And for each company mentioned they were asked:
What is it that makes you associate it with [the NAME OF COMPANY
previously identified was inserted – one for each question]? Any other
reasons?

10

25.

Respondents who answered that they had not seen the icon on a smart phone or

tablet computer or that they didn’t know, were not asked any subsequent questions.
Validation
26.

Following standard protocol, validation was conducted by attempting to re-

contact respondents to verify that they had participated in the study and met key
screening criteria. The names and telephone numbers of all respondents who had
provided this information were sent to Field Solutions, an interviewing service not
affiliated with the Target Research Group, to conduct telephone validation. They
attempted to validate 100% of the interviews, using a validation questionnaire that I
developed. (See Exhibit F.) In conducting the validation telephone calls, a minimum of
three attempts were made to re-contact all respondents who had provided telephone
numbers. For the survey, 2289 interviews were completed, and 2038 respondents were
contacted by telephone. Eight interviews failed to validate during telephone validation
and thus were excluded. Therefore, 2030 interviews were successfully validated (89%).
During the review process, two questionnaires were removed because the interviews were
not completed properly. Thus, the final database for the secondary meaning survey
contained 2279 (2289 – 8 – 2 = 2279) interviews. The very high validation rate for this
survey far exceeds the standard validation rate for legal surveys.

11

RESULTS
27.

The findings from the secondary meaning survey are shown in the following

tables. (See Exhibit G for tabulations.)
28.

TABLE 1
PHONE ICONS

Total Respondents
Have seen Icon on smart
phone or tablet computer
One Company
Apple Mentions

29.

Cell 1
Test Cell
152
118 (77.6%)
49 (32.2%)
25 (16.4%)

Cell 14
Control Cell
151
43 (28.5%)
18 (11.9%)
0 (0.0%)

Net

20.3%
16.4%

The data in Table 1 reveal that 77.6% of respondents exposed to the Apple phone

icon (test cell) indicated that they had seen the Apple icon on a smart phone or tablet
computer, whereas only 28.5% of control cell respondents answered that they had seen
the control phone icon on a smart phone or tablet computer. In addition, 32.2% of test
cell respondents and 11.9% of control cell respondents associated the icon with one
company’s smart phone or tablet computer. Thus, the “net” association of the Apple
phone icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet computer (adjusting for “noise” or
guessing) is 20.3% (32.2% - 11.9% = 20.3%). Moreover, 16.4% of test cell respondents
identified Apple as the company they associated the Apple phone icon with.2 None of the
control cell respondents identified Apple as that company. Therefore, the “net” mention
of Apple as a single source of the phone icon (adjusting for “noise” or guessing) is 16.4%
(16.4% - 0.0% = 16.4%).

2

Throughout the survey, any mention of Apple, iPhone, iPad, or iTunes was counted as an “Apple”
mention. Also, any mention of Apple, iPhone, iPad, or iTunes along with Verizon or AT&T (under a
“more than one company” response) was counted as an “Apple” mention.
12

30.

TABLE 2
MESSAGING ICONS

Total Respondents
Have seen Icon on smart
phone or tablet computer
One Company
Apple Mentions

31.

Cell 3
Test Cell
153

Cell 6
Control Cell
153

94 (61.4%)
46 (30.1%)
29 (19.0%)

73 (47.7%)
30 (19.6%)
9 (5.9%)

Net

10.5%
13.1%

The data in Table 2 show that 61.4% of respondents exposed to the Apple

messaging icon (test cell) indicated that they had seen the Apple icon on a smart phone or
tablet computer, whereas only 47.7% of control cell respondents answered that they had
seen the control messaging icon on a smart phone or tablet computer. In addition, 30.1%
of test cell respondents and 19.6% of control cell respondents associated the icon with
one company’s smart phone or tablet computer. Thus, the “net” association of the Apple
messaging icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet computer (adjusting for
“noise” or guessing) is 10.5% (30.1% - 19.6% = 10.5%). Moreover, 19.0% of test cell
respondents identified Apple as the company they associated the Apple messaging icon
with. Also, 5.9% of the control cell respondents identified Apple as that company.
Therefore, the “net” mention of Apple as a single source of the messaging icon (adjusting
for “noise” or guessing) is 13.1% (19.0% - 5.9% = 13.1%).

13

32.

TABLE 3
PHOTOS ICONS

Total Respondents
Have seen Icon on smart
phone or tablet computer
One Company
Apple Mentions

33.

Cell 5
Test Cell
149
64 (43.0%)
37 (24.8%)
23 (15.4%)

Cell 2
Control Cell
154
24 (15.6%)
9 (5.8%)
4 (2.6%)

Net

19.0%
12.8%

The data in Table 3 indicate that 43.0% of respondents exposed to the Apple

photos icon (test cell) indicated that they had seen the Apple icon on a smart phone or
tablet computer, whereas only 15.6% of control cell respondents answered that they had
seen the control photos icon on a smart phone or tablet computer. In addition, 24.8% of
test cell respondents and 5.8% of control cell respondents associated the icon with one
company’s smart phone or tablet computer. Thus, the “net” association of the Apple
photos icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet computer (adjusting for “noise” or
guessing) is 19.0% (24.8% - 5.8% = 19.0%). Moreover, 15.4% of test cell respondents
identified Apple as the company they associated the Apple photo icon with. Also, 2.6%
of the control cell respondents identified Apple as that company. Therefore, the “net”
mention of Apple as a single source of the photos icon (adjusting for “noise” or guessing)
is 12.8% (15.4% - 2.6% = 12.8%).

14

34.

TABLE 4
SETTINGS ICONS

Total Respondents
Have seen Icon on smart
phone or tablet computer
One Company
Apple Mentions

35.

Cell 7
Test Cell
150
71 (47.3%)
44 (29.3%)
23 (15.3%)

Cell 12
Control Cell
149
72 (28.3%)
26 (17.4%)
9 (6.0%)

Net

11.9%
9.3%

The data in Table 4 demonstrate that 47.3% of respondents exposed to the Apple

settings icon (test cell) indicated that they had seen the Apple icon on a smart phone or
tablet computer, whereas 28.3% of control cell respondents answered that they had seen
the control settings icon on a smart phone or tablet computer. In addition, 29.3% of test
cell respondents and 17.4% of control cell respondents associated the icon with one
company’s smart phone or tablet computer. Thus, the “net” association of the Apple
settings icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet computer (adjusting for “noise”
or guessing) is 11.9% (29.3% - 17.4% = 11.9%). Moreover, 15.3% of test cell
respondents identified Apple as the company they associated the Apple settings icon
with. Also, 6.0% of the control cell respondents identified Apple as that company.
Therefore, the “net” mention of Apple as a single source of the settings icon (adjusting
for “noise” or guessing) is 9.3% (15.3% - 6.0% = 9.3%).

15

36.

TABLE 5
NOTES ICONS

Total Respondents
Have seen Icon on smart
phone or tablet computer
One Company
Apple Mentions

37.

Cell 9
Test Cell
154
81 (52.6%)
46 (29.9%)
28 (18.2%)

Cell 10
Control Cell
151
67 (44.4%)
28 (18.5%)
9 (6.0%)

Net

11.4%
12.2%

The data in Table 5 show that 52.6% of respondents exposed to the Apple notes

icon (test cell) indicated that they had seen the Apple icon on a smart phone or tablet
computer, whereas 44.4% of control cell respondents answered that they had seen the
control notes icon on a smart phone or tablet computer. In addition, 29.9% of test cell
respondents and 18.5% of control cell respondents associated the icon with one
company’s smart phone or tablet computer. Thus, the “net” association of the Apple
notes icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet computer (adjusting for “noise” or
guessing) is 11.4% (29.9% - 18.5% = 11.4%). Moreover, 18.2% of test cell respondents
identified Apple as the company they associated the Apple notes icon with. Also, 6.0%
of the control cell respondents identified Apple as that company. Therefore, the “net”
mention of Apple as a single source of the notes icon (adjusting for “noise” or guessing)
is 12.2% (18.2% - 6.0% = 12.2%).

16

38.

TABLE 6
CONTACTS ICONS

Total Respondents
Have seen Icon on smart
phone or tablet computer
One Company
Apple Mentions

39.

Cell 11
Test Cell
152

Cell 4
Control Cell
151

79 (52.0%)
39 (25.7%)
27 (17.8%)

36 (23.5%)
16 (10.5%)
6 (3.9%)

Net

15.2%
13.9%

The data in Table 6 reveal that 52.0% of respondents exposed to the Apple

contacts icon (test cell) indicated that they had seen the Apple icon on a smart phone or
tablet computer, whereas 23.5% of control cell respondents answered that they had seen
the control contacts icon on a smart phone or tablet computer. In addition, 25.7% of test
cell respondents and 10.5% of control cell respondents associated the icon with one
company’s smart phone or tablet computer. Thus, the “net” association of the Apple
contacts icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet computer (adjusting for “noise”
or guessing) is 15.2% (25.7% - 10.5% = 15.2%). Moreover, 17.8% of test cell
respondents identified Apple as the company they associated the Apple contacts icon
with. Also, 3.9% of the control cell respondents identified Apple as that company.
Therefore, the “net” mention of Apple as a single source of the contacts icon (adjusting
for “noise” or guessing) is 13.9% (17.8% - 3.9% = 13.9%).

17

40.

TABLE 7
iTUNES ICONS

Total Respondents
Have seen Icon on smart
phone or tablet computer
One Company
Apple Mentions

41.

Cell 13
Test Cell
151
97 (64.2%)
49 (32.5%)
42 (27.8%)

Cell 8
Control Cell
151
44 (29.1%)
12 (7.9%)
4 (2.6%)

Net

24.6%
25.2%

The data in Table 7 indicate that 64.2% of respondents exposed to the Apple

iTunes icon (test cell) indicated that they had seen the Apple icon on a smart phone or
tablet computer, whereas 29.1% of control cell respondents answered that they had seen
the control iTunes icon on a smart phone or tablet computer. In addition, 32.5%% of test
cell respondents and 7.9% of control cell respondents associated the icon with one
company’s smart phone or tablet computer. Thus, the “net” association of the Apple
iTunes icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet computer (adjusting for “noise” or
guessing) is 24.6% (32.5% - 7.9% = 24.6%). Moreover, 27.8% of test cell respondents
identified Apple as the company they associated the Apple iTunes icon with. Also, 2.6%
of the control cell respondents identified Apple as that company. Therefore, the “net”
mention of Apple as a single source of the iTunes icon (adjusting for “noise” or guessing)
is 25.2% (27.8% - 2.6% = 25.2%).

18

42.

TABLE 8
iTUNES ON-LINE MUSIC SERVICE ICONS

Total Respondents
Have seen Icon on smart
phone or tablet computer
One Company
Apple Mentions

43.

Cell 15
Test Cell
152
60 (39.5%)
27 (17.8%)
12 (7.9%)

Cell 8
Control Cell
151
44 (29.1%)
12 (7.9%)
4 (2.6%)

Net

9.9%
5.3%

The data in Table 8 demonstrate that 39.5% of respondents exposed to the Apple

iTunes on-line music service icon (test cell) indicated that they had seen the Apple icon
on a smart phone or tablet computer, whereas 29.1% of control cell respondents answered
that they had seen the control iTunes on-line music service icon on a smart phone or
tablet computer. In addition, 17.8%% of test cell respondents and 7.9% of control cell
respondents associated the icon with one company’s smart phone or tablet computer.
Thus, the “net” association of the Apple iTunes on-line music service icon with one
company’s smart phone or tablet computer (adjusting for “noise” or guessing) is 9.9%
(17.8% - 7.9% = 9.9%). Moreover, 7.9% of test cell respondents identified Apple as the
company they associated the Apple iTunes on-line music service icon with. Also, 2.6%
of the control cell respondents identified Apple as that company. Therefore, the “net”
mention of Apple as a single source of the iTunes on-line music service icon (adjusting
for “noise” or guessing) is 5.3% (7.9% - 2.6% = 5.3%).

19

44.

TABLE 9
IDENTIFICATION OF APPLE AS ONE COMPANY
APPLE VS. NON-APPLE OWNERS
Apple Owners

Phone Icon (Test – Cell 1)
Phone Icon (Control – Cell 14)
NET
Messaging Icon (Test – Cell 3)
Messaging Icon (Control – Cell 6)
NET
Photos (Test – Cell 5)
Photos (Control – Cell 2)
NET
Settings (Test – Cell 7)
Settings (Control – Cell 12)
NET
Notes (Test – Cell 9)
Notes (Control – Cell 10)
NET
Contacts (Test – Cell 11)
Contacts (Control – Cell 4)
NET
iTunes (Test – Cell 13)
iTunes (Control – Cell 8)
NET
iTunes On-Line Music Svc (Test – Cell 15)
iTunes On-Line Music Svc (Control – Cell 8)
NET

45.

45.7%
9.0%
36.7%
40.5%
10.0%
30.5%
38.8%
7.7%
31.1%
32.5%
14.4%
18.2%
48.8%
13.3%
35.5
45.7%
18.6%
27.7
57.8%
6.5%
51.3%
22.9%
6.5%
16.4%

Non-Apple
Owners
10.4%
0.0%
10.4%
10.8%
4.4%
6.4%
4.0%
0.9%
3.1%
9.1%
1.0%
8.1%
6.3%
2.8%
3.5%
5.7%
0.9%
4.8%
15.1%
1.0%
14.1%
3.4%
1.0%
2.4%

The data in Table 9 report the differences in identification of Apple as a single

source among Apple smart phone and/or tablet computer owners compared to non-Apple
owners. Identification of Apple as a single source by owners of Apple iPhones or iPads,
and adjusting for control, varied from 51.3% for the iTunes icon and 36.7% for the phone
icon to 16.4% for the iTunes On-Line Music Service icon and 18.2% for the settings icon.
On the other hand, identification of Apple as a single source by non-Apple owners,
adjusting for control, varied from 14.1% for the iTunes icon and 10.4% for the phone
icon to 2.4% for the iTunes On-Line Music Service icon and 3.1% for the photos icon.

20