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.'"

Comments

Just don't call it innovation

[rlp]

Taiwanese companies aren't allowed to copy Apple designs, only Microsoft is allowed to do that.

Gimme a break

[alta]

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.

Re:Gimme a break

[Thansal]

Image

Taken directly from their website, it apears that they are flat out stating "YES, WE RIPPED OFF APPLE COME BUY FROM US!"

Re:Gimme a break

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

It certinaly is a knockoff, but normally knockoffs are perfectly legal. The only reason knockoffs can really get in trouble is patents, trademarks, etc. So unless the Taiwanese Gov gave Apple a patent on white plastic and play/pause/next/last buttons it probably fine legally (as thier high court said). There is nothing inherently bad or illegal at least about knockoffs.

Re:Gimme a break

[fbjon]

But they also improved the design. 3 colour options, a screen, still the same same size.

Duh

[Divebus]

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.

Not abuse of power

[necro81]

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.

Re:Not abuse of power

[iamhassi]

I'd love to read what the District Court said to come to the conclusion that "the appearances of the two products are significantly dissimilar" because to me they look near identical.

Re:Not abuse of power

[belmolis]

Luxpro seems to have three models. The two higher-end ones are quite different from the Apple model due to their displays. The low-end one is much more similar but is nonetheless readily distinguishible from the Apple model due to the prominent Luxpro logo. Insofar as they are not infringing any Apple patents or copyrights and there is no way a reasonable consumer could confuse the two products, Apple has no case.

Re:Not abuse of power

[pdboddy]

Ah, so we *can* blatently rip off any one we want, just slap on our own "prominent" logo and it's all free and clear.

Re:Not abuse of power

[solafide]

I find Luxpro's Super Shuffle a significant UI improvement, with those more prominent buttons; my biggest complaint with the actual Shuffle is that it's hard to tell when you've hit the buttons. Not a problem with Luxpro's.

Re:Not abuse of power

[belmolis]

Yes, if you want to put it that way. Nobody has a monopoly on making small music players. Anyone who wants to is entitled to take that idea and run with it. If they want to use patented features in their hardware they need a license. Similarly, if they want to use somebody else's software they need a license from the copyright owner. If they can design the hardware without infringing any patents and write their software from scratch, they are beholden to no one. The only other thing they can't do is name their product in such a way as to induce confusion in the mind of consumers, or use non-functional design elements (so-called "trade dress") that would lead to confusion. There is no law against picking up on other people's ideas and making something similar.

And, in this case, there isn't much to say about reward for innovation. Luxpro doesn't appear to be copying anything particularly innovative from Apple. After all, there have been a series of digital audio players since 1998. It isn't as if Apple came first or is even technically particularly innovative. Apple did not pioneer the use of laptop hard drives or flash, and arguably it didn't even pioneer important aspects of the interface, judging from the patent disputes with which they have had to deal. Companies compete in a variety of ways, sometimes by making a better product, sometimes by making it more cheaply. There's no law or principle of business ethics that says that Luxpro isn't entitled to try to win market share by making a product much like Apple's and selling it for a lower price.

Re:Not abuse of power

[dosius]

They certainly don't recognize international copyrights. That's why companies like Son May Records are allowed to exist in Taiwan, where they would be illegal anywhere else.

-uso.

Next time do it right

[davidwr]

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.

Same joke, different decade

[MarkusQ]

Luxpro (discussed on Slashdot last year) intends to sue Apple for US$100M

My first thought is that this is just the 2007 update of the old Austin Powers joke:

Dr. Evil: I demand the sum... OF 1 MILLION DOLLARS.

--MarkusQ

code of knockoffs

[fermion]

It seems to me that knockoffs are not a problem, and are quite profitable, as long as they do not try to masquerade as the original. However, if a knockoff is trying to masquerade as the original, I as a consumer would like it to be a problem. I want to know that the product I am buying is made by the people I think it is, and not by some fly by night operation, and i don't want to waste a lot of time trying to figure it out. For instance, if I go and buy a montblanc pen, I don't want to be confused by the montblanch pen. Likewise if I so choose to pay for the unique design and quality of LV luggage, I don't want to be confused by some knockoff.

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.

LUXPRO's rip-off was more blatant than they claim!

[argent]

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.

Re:If you ask me

[ClosedSource]

I'm all for a broad interpretation of the marketplace with respect of monopoly issues, but the marketplace was deliberately narrowed in order to make the case for MS to be a monopoly and the same reasoning could be applied to Apple as well. The difference is only a matter of degree.