Consequences matter, the intent and spirit of the law matter — lobbying, laws, case law, patents and injunctions are decided by humans — which is why it's important to counteract the claim you quote, that this is about protecting customers from being confused about what they're buying.
Trade dress law is well-established, and Apple itself has a history of successfully pursuing trade dress claims in the Northern District of California. In 2000 the company sued both eMachines and a company called Future Power for knocking off the iMac's trade dress, winning injunctions in both cases and eventually getting extremely restrictive settlements that effectively removed the infringing products from the marketplace.
The eOne: http://lowendmac.com/imac/eone.shtml
Article about the case: http://zdnetasia.com/apple-stops-sales-of-imac-knockoffs-130...
Here is what makes community designs a step up from other roadblocks against competitors: http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/The_Community_Design_and_y...
Trade dress is the wonky red-headed step-cousin of the family that fills the gaps between the three; you might think of it as a trademark on design elements that trigger consumer recognition. [...] Apple's claim is that the iPhone's box and design scream "Apple" to consumers just as strongly as the word "iPhone."