Slashdot Mirror
iPod Shuffle Lookalike Hits CeBIT
An anonymous reader writes "It shouldn't be long before Apple's legal team goes after this one. LuxPro out of Taiwan introduced the Super Shuffle at CeBit, a look-a-like portable that is identical to the iPod Shuffle right down to the sihouette ads, but with the addition of an FM tuner and voice recording."
Using a "similar" name is still trademark infringement. They're using Apple's brand to sell their product.
How we know is more important than what we know.
1. Make it black
2. Make the circular control area square.
3. Make it narrower (even if it means making it longer to cram the electronics in). This is one area where it would actually improve on the real Shuffle, which is just too wide, especially where it plugs in, requiring a USB extension cable or unplugging the other plugs that are crammed in near the USB plug.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
IAAL and...
You can actually protect style and aesthetics to a certain extent. It depends on the jurisdiction, but in many countries there is intellectual properties in designs, as opposed to patented methods or copyrighted works. In Australia, for instance, the rip-off iPod would clearly breach rights in Apple's shuffle design, assuming they were validly registered etc., not because of the similar functionality but because of the identical aesthetics.
Furthermore, Apple may have an action for 'passing off' in that this company is clearly trying to ride on Apple's market reputation to sell their own product through the name, advertising and styling of the device. This is an illicit subversion of Apple's goodwill and they will be able to take action on this basis in most countries.
Finally, if the allegations about asian tech manufacturers and Apple's partners prove true, there will very likely be an action in contract or equity against any company that has participated in sharing the technology used in the Shuffle for this device.
That is the legal position. My OPINION, however, is that Apple deserve to get screwed over because this new device looks as good and has better functionality than the Shuffle. Plus it is refreshing to see that you don't have to have the Godly powers of Steve Jobs in your fingertips to produce the same hardware at the same (or lower, presumably) price.
Read Pynchon.
The iPod Shuffle uses a Sigmatel Stmp3550, which doesn't have a built in FM tuner. There's an external tuner chip which only supports FM.
Apple to stop CeBIT presentation of iPod shuffle clone
Tell me again why Apple doesn't put FM in the iPod?
I assume they don't think it would help sell more iPods. When they see demand, if they see demand, they'll spend a year making it cool and release it at the 11th hour.
The company you ought to be talking to is Griffin. They were going to do an FM tuner for the 'pod, but dropped it because Apple changed the way the iPod remote worked.
Why Griffin couldn't have given their tuner its own controls, I don't know.
This player doesn't, it uses an internal li-ion battery like the shuffle does. If it's the same dimensions as the shuffle, there's no room for an AAA battery in the player.
From the LuxPro page:
Power Supply: Li-Ion rechargeable built-in battery (Charging via USB port from computer or power adapter)
Heise News article (in German) and the Google-Translation (replace "conditions" with "booth", and it makes more sense). LuxPro had removed the notPod from their booth on Friday, but put it up again on Saturday.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
If you think you need to worry because someone else's product looks like yours, you have a problem. This means your whole sales concept is based on a look. I would be far more worried about a product that has more functionnalities, or cheaper.
It's called trade dressage, as I recall. Companies own the design, and can stop others from producing exact copies. IANAL, so there's no doubt a lot of factors that determine infringement (or what ever it's called).
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Sure, they may not be able to sell it in the US for long but I'm sure they'll be able to sell it in many other countries, like China for example.
I just followed your links...the iPod Shuffle and Gray Whale do not look even remotely similar to one another.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
You're correct. Under English law, Apple have at least three causes of action:
- trademark re. the name
- design rights re. the design
- "passing off", i.e. selling a product which people may think is made or endorsed by Apple.
Most of the major jurisdictions have similar laws.
I don't think there are any trademarks that have been hit and other than that they just kind of look the same and have similar functionality.
It appears that they copied the package design of the iPod Shuffle, along with the term"Shuffle" in relation to a brand of music players.
Apple has trademark on the term "Shuffle" when used in relation with portable music players. Dell can't sell the "Dell Shuffle" music player unless they ask Apple first. (On the flip side, maybe they could sell the Dell Shuffle Picture Frame Series, or the Dell Shuffle card shuffler)
The design of the iPod shuffle's case is also protected. Apple's design is owned by Apple. It'd be wise to mix it up (pun!) instead of releasing a device that is clearly identical in appearance.
All this is exactly why Ford never produced a car called "The Camaro", and never produced a car looked strikingly similar to a Chevy Camaro. Among other reasons related to the fact that the Camaro sucked.
In the same way, Dell doesn't have a "Super Armada" series of laptops.
---
In any case, I think there's an IP lesson in the making here - you may be finding legal trouble if you copy the name of a similar product, or the physical look of a product. Instead, think of your own name and create your own packaging.
Here's what I'd advise: I'd call it the "Mini Mixer", paint it with chrome-like reflective paint, make the device 1/3rd the size, have it accept voice commands (and lose the buttons), and advertise it with a 500 hour battery life.
Apperently, if anyone was wondering what the Apple lawyers were gonna do, it's here
About 5 years ago, right after Apple came out with the first iMac, eMachines came out with a blatant knockoff and Apple successfully sued http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/08/20/ 1345216&tid=3. This website http://ordinateurs.free.fr/APPLE/copies_pc_iMac.ht m is in French but has pictures.
Right after Apple released the iMac back in 1998, everyone started jumping on the "all-in-one" PC thing again. A new company at the time, eMachines, tried to market a near copy of it called the eOne PC. They were slapped with injunctions in the US and Tokyo shortly after that and later forced to stop production.
The review for the eOne is still up on epinions, along with a stock photo: eOne Photo
Daewoo tried something similar. They both got the smack down. See here.
Do you remember when Cobalt Networks was about to sue Apple over the Cube? Because of Cobalt's Qube design? Only to find out a few months later Apple owned NeXT at that point, which created the original Cube. At that point Cobalt changed their tune and decided suing might not be so smart. Some Cobalt info.
The reason for suing is brand dilution. When you make a look-a-like, you're copying a design that's identified with the product. It's the same reason stores brand soda tries to have similar color schemes to Coke, or Pepsi. You identify the product by the colors, shapes and patterns of the packaging or product itself.
I get what the Taiwanese company is doing. They would have been better off sticking to knock off Nintendo games though. I'd guarantee Apple already knows about the knock off at this point, and we'll probably be seeing lawsuits within a week or two.
For example your title is difficult to understand. If you say "The Shuffle is a clone to begin with" people expect to see some "prior art".
... so they're "functionally identical".
Apple created a USB2.0 player for MP3/AAC/M4A/M4B/M4P/AA/AppleLossless/WAV(?)/AIFF and does not allow song uploads via USB MassStorage. Your stick is a USB1.1 player for MP3/WMA files and scans its MassStorage memory for songs.
Well, both players support mp3-files
q.e.d.
I dunno where you live, but every Target I've been in has em.
just ask for it at the electronics counter. I picked up a 1GB there about two weeks ago. I asked why they weren't on display, and the reason was related to shrinkage. So, maybe you might wanna saunter/mosey/drive there...
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
> IANAL but I don't think there is much apple can do. Unless
> they stole some patented technology, they should be fine with
> that desing. You cannot copyright style or asthetics.
I don't that's true. Patents aren't the only thing protected. Designs, trademarks, logos, and appearances are protected, too.
You can't market a product that can be mistakened for the product of another. The reason is that psychologically, people associated items that look similar as having the same quality as the original product, and consumers will assume that the two companies have something in common. In other words, the rip-off product is trying to bank on the consumer perception of the original product.
In my Consumer Behavior class we studied the case of a regional soft drink called "Corr's Natural Soda". The can looked vaguely like "Coors", but the script was different (to someone paying attention) and the former can had a big cross-section of a lemon on it.
Coor's Brewing Company sued the regional soda manufacturer claiming that "Corr's" was trying to facilitate their market position and gain benefits through the name and the look of the can. The latter defended by saying that it was named after the owner "Robert Corr".
The courts sided with Coor's Brewing Company. They told the regional soda company to change the product to make it less similar to Coors. They were told to not put the name in script and if they wanted to name their soda after the person, they had to use the guy's full name and not just the last name with an apostrophe s so as to not deceive. The soda was changed to "Robert Corr Natural Soda," the name was put in a regular (albeit ugly) Serif font, and the can looked different enough from Coors that no one would expect there to be a connection.
The Coors versus Corr's case gives some insight, so I think Apple has a case. Many people will look at this "Super Shuffle" and think either Apple made it (since it looks almost exactly like the iPod shuffle), or that this company builds it for Apple (and thus the customer is getting the same product for less money because they don't pay Apple's markup). Then they'll go home and find out it doesn't support purchases from the iTunes Music Store, and you'll have some unhappy customers.
Clearly this ripoff product is gaining value by banking on Apple's look and feel. The fact that they put "Shuffle" in the name (a non-obvious name that only has value now that Apple has an iPod shuffle) and their ad rips Apple's ads off makes it worse.
I'm sure Apple Legal will have a response Monday morning. Like with the case of Future Power who ripped off the iMacs years ago, Apple needs to quelch the iPod ripoffs early and often. If someone wants to make a competing product, great, but market the product on its own merits, not trying to deceive customers.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
The use of symbols is not required by law. If you register your trademark, you get to skip over the part of the lawsuit where you demonstrate that it's a trademark.
In this case, demonstrating that "shuffle" is an integral part of the "iPod shuffle" mark would take about two paragraphs and ten minutes of a legal assistant's time to type up.
I think we're assuming that it is inferior because it is made in Taiwan
Yes, because no good technology is produced in Taiwan. Next time you go to a computer store, look at the motherboards section...
Nowadays most motherboard companies have alternative homepages, but I remember 5-6 years ago if you needed bios updates or driver patches, the pages were always at www.motherboardbrand.com.tw
It still seems to be the case:
http://www.abit.com.tw
http://www.asus.com.tw
http://www.gigabyte.com.tw
http://www.msi.com.tw
http://www.epox.com.tw
http://www.tyan.com.tw
The basic purpose of trademark is preventing consumer confusion. When one company markets a product, they advertise unique features of their product that allows the consumer to choose their widge machine over the next guy's. They attach claims to their advertisements too, describing things like guarantees and warranty, plus associating the company's good name (reputation) with the product.
Another company selling widget machines might decide that instead of spending money on marketing, they can just make their widget machine look identical to (or very close to) the well-known widget machine. This creates "brand confusion", and pisses off customers when they buy what they thought was brand X but in fact was a visual knock-off of brand X by brand Y. They thought they were getting the promises from brand X, but brand Y is usually a lower quality unit with none of the promises, and the customer also finds they were not in fact buying from the well known and trusted brand, but rather some unheard of company. This is a case of fraud, where you are trying to trick the consumer into buying your product under the pretense that it's a different product.
To illustrate... If you went to the grocery store and bought a bag of Cheetos and got home and started munching on them and they tasted like crap, (or, really, tasted like anything besides Cheetos) then you look closely at the bag (which at a glance looks IDENTICAL to a bag of Cheetos) and see the name is "Cheatos", you too would be pissed. Trademark laws are not only to help companies - they also protect the consumer against fraud.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
This isn't 'IP' like software patents, or DMCA copyright schemes, it's 'IP' as in 'identity'.
No one would cry 'foul' at this product, if it were functionally exactly like it is now, but didn't look just like an iPod shuffle, and wasn't packaged with Apple type adverts (dancing black silhouettes with white 'pods over a green background).
I agree that fighting competition with 'IP" instead of innovation is evil, but this thing isn't 'competition', it's impersonation.
"The iPod ear-bud headphones are among the best we've tested."
yeah the shuffle is apparently actually built by asus according to an article on digitimes from a while back...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
> This is much more like software patents, where we get frustrated with the fact that we're not allowed to copy what somebody already invented. Generally speaking copying is allowed.
No, the issue with software patents is that most of the patents are for things so trivial that anyone could (and probably has) independantly develop them.
A software patent on an application that is suffiently innovative, non trivial and non obvious is no better or worse than a patent on a physical invention, it's just that in the world of software patents, the patent examiners seem to have no clue and assume that anything someone has done with a computer must be worthy of patenting.
If you have any other problem with software patents then it's not software patents you have a problem with, it's patents in general.
But back to the Super Suffle.
It looks almost identical to the iPod Shuffle, and it has an extremely similar name - "xxx Shuffle"
I've never heard of another MP3 player called "Shuffle" so it's certainly not a generic term.
I think it well and truly satisfies the "Confusingly similar" requirement.
Similar to copyright, trademarks don't _need_ to be registered to be protected under trademark law.
I guess the real issue here is whether or not they will try to sell it in a market that has trademark laws that will allow Apple to sue them.
Advanced users are users too!
I keep reading much the same thing. Various websites always have staments like product x has better audio than the ipod with absolutely no idication of why or how. Is this just an opinion, is the comparison done with the same headphones, or better quality headphones. Was it done with a blind testing of a group of 'golden ears' or by two half-deaf-glue-sniffers during a Metallica concert?
I have also read other webpages, by audio engineers, that found the iPods frequency response to be incredibly flat for such an inexpensive device.
So is this "possess lower audio quality than competing manufacturers" an attempt to tar the iPod name or is it based on some sort of actual reality?
And second, you need a little bit of education on the difference between morals and ethics. I won't even undertake to do that here, but here's a pretty decent web site: http://www.scribblers-ink.com/professional_ethics
Apple does unethical things upon occasion, as does any other large corporation you can name. Do they do it more often? Are they a thousand times more heavily scrutinized than most other companies their size, and therefore their 'little lapses' are more often found? Is more expected of them, because of their early rhetoric, and therefore are all lapses greatly magnified, sometimes out of proportion?
I'd have to answer those three questions: 'who knows?', 'yes', and 'ohhh yes.'
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Frequency Responseo d/Performance/measurements.html o d/Performance/compared.html
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.heijligers/ip
and comparison
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.heijligers/ip
It's because your average reviewer doesn't want flat frequency response - they want excessive "bass" in the 70-90Hz range. People who actually care about music sounding real seem to be satisified with the iPod.
I have myself done trademark registrations for a company I used to work for. Although not that big of a company, The registration of the trademarks meant more control on the use of all the logo's, names and figures. It helped us to increase venue through licensing and merchandising. The trademark would allow us to prevent the use with the same domain for which it was registred. In case of Apple, iPod and Shuffle are likely to have been registred separately but both for electronic devices which would in general play music if they registred it as such. As long as they kept the definition of the trademark as general as possible they will be able to prevent the sales of this device almost world wide. If they just trademarked it as a device to play music files, they will not be that likely to prevent the use of the name.