Slashdot Mirror
Luxpro Sues Apple for Damages and 'Power Abuse'
Dystopian Rebel writes "The Financial Times reports that Taiwanese company Luxpro (discussed on Slashdot last year) intends to sue Apple for US$100M for 'lost revenue caused by Apple's abuse of their global power.' In 2005, Apple obtained an injunction against Luxpro's Super Shuffle/Super Tangent but the Taiwanese Supreme Court has overturned the injunction, opening the door to Luxpro's legal action. From the article: 'The [Luxpro] product had almost the same measurements and weight, came in a white plastic casing and had similar buttons on the front. Its name, Super Shuffle, also closely resembled the original.'"
![[Luxpro] product](http://asia.cnet.com/i/r/2005/pav/39094321/b001.jpg){kind=link}
Next thing you know, the have-nots will rise up and overthrow their oppr^H^H^H^Hbenevolent paternal overseers.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
Awww.. poor widdle Asian company can't get away with producing knockoffs. Cry me a river.
Taiwanese companies aren't allowed to copy Apple designs, only Microsoft is allowed to do that.
[Insert pithy quote here]
That thing is SUCH a rip off, I don't care what makes it different, looking at the pic, it's obvious that they're trying to capitalize on apple's product by copying it.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
welcome our new Taiwanese overlords.
What possible mystery could there be here? I thought the Taiwanese were smarter than that. Here's a case where the Chinese don't mind delineating Taiwan as a separate entity.
Most of the stuff on
Just about anyone who looks at the two devices side by side will acknowledge that the Luxpro product is a clear knockoff of the original. Since that is the case, Apple was justified in seeking the injunction - it was not an abuse of power.
The injunction was granted but later overturned. FTFA:
Luxpro appealed and won subsequent lawsuits in the Taiwan High Court and the Taiwan Supreme Court. Last month, the Shihlin District Court lifted the original injunction, saying that "the appearances of the two products are significantly dissimilar".
Now, I don't actually think they are all that dissimilar, but that's only tangentially related to this countersuit. Apple's original suit, seeking the injunction, was not a frivolous move by a monopolistic juggernaut - just a company defending its interests. Apple's shareholders could have sued if Apple hand't sought the injunction.
Had Luxpro's device pre-dated Apple's, or if the two devices really were dissimilar, that would be another thing.
Create a player SMALLER than the one you want to copy, then create a "case" that makes your gizmo look "kind of like" the Apple model, but not so close you are violating any laws.
Then wait for the judgement-proof street-corner vendors and we-don't-care-about-trademark 3rd-world toymakers to smell cash and create their own "shell" that exactly mimics Apple.
Word will get around and sales of your product and the third-party shells will both skyrocket.
When the trademark police come, they will come for the toymakers, the street vendors, and your customers, leaving you high and dry. After all, you've broken no laws.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you ask me and looking at Apples history of monopoly and abuse of power, it would not be a surprise to me that the story has a real base. I mean, look at the whole PowerPC situation when Apple just used his power to cut off the power to their competitors and remain the monopoly with the Macintosh hardware. Apple is a very closed company and clearly likes to use the advantage of their little monopoly (little by numbers , but a monopoly anyway). Anyway, time (and lawyers with tons of $$$) will tell.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
My first thought is that this is just the 2007 update of the old Austin Powers joke:
--MarkusQ
In this case if seems like these two player are nearly identical, which is no problem. Aiwa came out with walkman clones, which I considered better quality and a much better value. This was not an issue because there was a clear branding difference between the Sony and Aiwa product. What is a problem is the name super shuffle is confusing with the shuffle. Such confusion reducing the ability for consumers to efficiently acquire products, which is bad. Certain agents benefit at the expense of society.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Who care if they look similar or not. People buy iPods because of the Apple brand name, not looks or features. There are other mp3 players with more features that cost less, and yet the iPods continue to sell better due to the "coolness factor" of it being an iPod.
"But this one goes to 11!"
I buy iPods because of the superior user experience. That means having the integrated iTunes store, the click wheel UI, and the fact that since I'm a Mac user, it's a pain to even TRY and use a different mp3 player.
-- Boycott Shell
604 WiFi is better!
...
Really? You mean running a blatantly monopolistic business practice and then stomping the guts out of your competition is bad?
Who let these socialists in here anyways?
This is almighty Capitalism were are talkin' bout here!
It's all about the
When Apple went after them for the injunction, Luxpro was calling it the "Super Shuffle", not the "Super Tangent", and they were using iPod-style advertising when it was introduced at CeBIT right after Apple introduced the Shuffle. Here's their original advertising material: LUXPRO's Super Shuffle images and promotional materials.
Why is it the Slashdotters hate copyright and patents .. unless Apple is the holder of the IP.
Aiwa were not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sony until 2002 (prior to this Sony owned some stock; I don't know how much). I assume the Walkmans the grandparent message discussed were cassette-based ones, in which case this will have been long before the takeover.
One other thing; note that the buttons on this early version are even closer to those of the iPod.
Luxpro would get a little more sympathy from me if they had avoided copying the shuffle so literally. That's not even a legal question (there's nothing innovative about the old iPod Shuffle, and Apple copied a lot from other designs), they just lack common sense. They should at least have changed the shape of the pseudo-click wheel to square or something.