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.'"

Re:Gimme a break

[Thansal]

Image [luxpro.com.tw]

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

Not abuse of power

[necro81]

Just about anyone who looks at the two devices [mp3newswire.net] side by side [luxpro.com.tw] 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.

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.

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.

It's always different for Apple

[ClosedSource]

Why is it the Slashdotters hate copyright and patents .. unless Apple is the holder of the IP.

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.