The disputed MacBook Pros and later 3nd Generation 20" iMacs involved in the two lawsuits actually could and did produce millions of colors... just not the 16.7 million discrete shades that an 8 bit display can provide that some thought was implied.
Apple used a sub-pixel brightness (Frame Rate Control) dithering technique, rapidly shifting a sub-pixel between two of the 64 possible shades on each of the three sub-pixel color diodes many times per second to simulate the shades that the discrete digital colors could not display constantly. With human persistence of vision, it was possible to display a perceived millions colors. If I recall correctly, the number of dithered shades was somewhere around 16.2 million colors. Of course the 1024 x 768 MacBookPro display that was in dispute at the time was capable of showing only 786,432 pixels at any one time. The 20" iMac display was capable of 2,304,000 pixels.
Apple did not advertise 16.7 million colors, or 24bit "Trucolor" as many of the other LCD companies did when reporting the capabilities of their 6 bit LCD screens, instead opting for the more accurate "millions of colors."
One of the lawsuits was settled out of court, the other was dismissed when Apple provided expert information showing that the 6bit displays could indeed produce millions of colors.
Their core products were reasonably priced, 1/4 to 1/2 of 1984 Mac sticker price.
When I culled out the older models, I don't find your 1/4 to 1/2 Mac pricing for the 1982-1985 production McIntosh products from your own link. Instead I find prices varying on the two pages for those production years from $1199 up for a single component (two channel amplifiers) of a multi-component system. This unit is hardly "reasonably priced" when in 1984 you could buy a top of the line Sony or Pioneer complete system for that same $1200.
The whole Timex watch cost less than a bracelet for a good Swiss watch. Yet,Timex is essentially worthless the moment it is taken out of the store, while Swiss watch can be sold even 50 years later for good part of the original outlay. In that light, Swiss watch is better investment and therefore more reasonable purchase. That is the difference between cheap toss away consumer products and quality products and that's why cheap products are not perceived as luxury brands and no one copies them.
The '84 $1200 Sony/Pioneer system you mentioned was mid-fi at that time and if still working is worth no more than 400 in today's dollars (less than 15% of original cost, adjusted for inflation), while McIntosh sells for approx. the same amount in today's dollars it cost new back then.(40% adjusted for inflation).
My point is that McIntosh was well regarded brand known for quality products that people were willing to pay back then and are willing to pay today.
There are hundreds of apple varieties, and out of all of them, Apple Computer chose the name that sounds the same as well known luxury brand, even they were initially aware of the possible trademark infringement.
Apple' request to Gordon Gow you posted is perfect example of audacity in business. It seems Ruskies studied Apple's business practices quite well.
Apple has become one of the most valuable brand on the market and I would not be surprised if 10 years from now Apple branches out into food production/GM manipulation and forces fruit growers to sign licensing agreements with Apple if they want to grow and sell apples.
This sounds weird today, but not weirder than Apple Computers branching into music business and entertaining electronics.