Shock and disbelief in the iLounge, a couple of the comments below.
[quote]That is crazy. How corrupt are those courts?
Same size, weight, design, funtion, controls, name AND the same advertisting campaign.
How is that dissimilar in anyway other than that they added “Super” in front of “shuffle”?
Apple is 100% within their rights here.
[/quote]
and so on and so on. Although this one also caught my eye.
[quote]If you read the text of court order, you will know apple did not lose the battle. And the news source is a straight quote from luxpro’s press-release.
[/quote][/quote]
Wow, if anyone doubted that Taiwan’s courts are totally useless and its judges a bunch of idiots, this case should make it abundantly clear.
[quote]03/10/05
LuxPro today debuted its own version of the iPod shuffle: the Super shuffle. The flash-based player not only trades on Apple’s ‘shuffle’ brand, but also is a virtual knockoff of the iPod shuffle. . .[/quote]
Apple sues for infringement, loses , the Taiwan company has the gall to countersue for $100M.
It’s not my country; I’m just a visitor.
Thanks for the pics. That’s outrageous! When will Taiwan get it that this stuff damages Taiwan more than helps it?
In my opinion, the Luxpro models are significantly different from an iPod shuffle. For one thing, iPods are white, but color can not be protected by law. Protection may be given for “shape”. The original iPod had a very distinctive shape, but now Apple has several products, each with different shapes. The iPod shuffle’s shape is like a chocolate bar, a standard shape in electronics today.
Besides, Luxpro labels their product quite distinctively, so it’s clear that it’s not an iPod.
[quote=“twocs”]In my opinion, the Luxpro models are significantly different from an iPod shuffle. For one thing, iPods are white, but color can not be protected by law. Protection may be given for “shape”. The original iPod had a very distinctive shape, but now Apple has several products, each with different shapes. The iPod shuffle’s shape is like a chocolate bar, a standard shape in electronics today.
Besides, Luxpro labels their product quite distinctively, so it’s clear that it’s not an iPod.[/quote]
Color does enter the equation , athough in this case it is not the major issue. “Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., Inc.” established that color could be a mark if it is non-functional, but also recognized that color generally had an aesthetic or utilitarian function.
Luxpro originally didn’t have the word Luxpro on the prodcut (if you can find pictures dating back a year), and thy have changed the name not to include the word shuffle. Their intent was quite plain to see. The owner of this company either thinks bad publicity is a great tactic or is the stupidist person alive.
The insides of this product are quite different (and better) than the shuffle , noteably including a radio. Comming up with a slightly different mechanical design would have taken no trouble and then to market the product on its own with no lawsuits would have been they way to go. Instead they have pissed off one of the companies they will need to seek closer ties with in the future (in their feild ) and are now on everyones radar as an unimaginative copycat company.
Their lawsuit to get money out of Apple is a joke, I presume another publicity stunt.
Definitely a publicity stunt. Maybe they would have been better off suing for $100 Billion just for greater effect. Imagine the average Apple Stockholder sipping coffee in front of the fireplace and reading that headline. Hell Luxpro would be a household name in a week.
Interestingly enough, since Luxpro obviously has the advantage of Taiwan’s backward court system, and perhaps even some judges in their pocket, what if they pull a rabbit out of a hat and win this thing? Would Apple have to pay? Or would they just not pay and be forced to completely abandon the Taiwan market?
Please come and see my new website: Folumosa.com !
Free Appel Shuffel iPad with every registration!
[quote=“twocs”]In my opinion, the Luxpro models are significantly different from an iPod shuffle. For one thing, iPods are white, but color can not be protected by law. Protection may be given for “shape”. The original iPod had a very distinctive shape, but now Apple has several products, each with different shapes. The iPod shuffle’s shape is like a chocolate bar, a standard shape in electronics today.
Besides, Luxpro labels their product quite distinctively, so it’s clear that it’s not an iPod.[/quote]
You’re joking, right? Clearly they look almost identical. Their functions are almost identical as well. And they used to be named identically (Luxpro first named its knock-off the Shuffle, but later changed the name. I wonder why?)
As for whether they ARE unlawful or not, of course that depends on the actual facts and laws. These lawsuits were filed in Taiwan, so one needs to know what patents Apple has in Taiwan. (For the most part, patent protection must be applied for on a country by country basis, and the laws and enforcement vary in each country).
While I don’t know what patents Apple registered in Taiwan, it certainly could have had sufficient patent protection to ban the Luxpro. Under Taiwan’s Patent Act, patent protection is available for invention patents, design patents, and utility models. Invention patents and utility patents both refer to technical creations. A design patent, according to Taiwan’s Patent Act, covers “any creation made in respect to the shape, pattern, color, or combination thereof of any article.”
If Apple had registered design patents in Taiwan covering the iPod, the court clearly should have found the Luxpro to be infringing. So perhaps that was part of the problem. Perhaps Apple failed to register a design patent in Taiwan.
The design would also be protected in most nations as “trade dress” and theoretically is protected as such in Taiwan (the law prohibits “obviously unfair conduct that would affect trading”), but industry groups and the the US Trade Representative’s office have repeatedly expressed concern about that law not being enforced in Taiwan.
Here’s what the American Apparel Association had to say:
apparelandfootwear.org/letters/ipr.doc
And here’s what the US Trade Reps office said:
ustr.gov/assets/Document_Lib … 9_6435.pdf
So, upon further consideration, I don’t know whether Luxpro infringed any Taiwan patents of Apple’s or not, because I don’t know what patents Apple registered in Taiwan, but the court certainly should have deemed the Luxpro Tangent to be at least in violation of the Fair Trade Law. That’s conclusion No. 1. It’s also possible Apple lost the suit because it hired a local law firm that did a totally incompetent job, which is another fair criticism of Taiwan’s legal system (even the most “reputable” law firms in Taiwan tend to be fairly incompetent).
Conclusion No. 2 is that Luxpro’s Chairman is one major asshole to now sue Apple just because he was lucky enough to get away with his theft of Apple’s design.
Conclusion No. 3 is that this result definitely would not have happened in the US, which is significant because that is the world’s largest market for technology products. Protection in Taiwan, China and other such countries is important, and unjust results like this cost the company millions of dollars, but protection in the US is far more important, because that’s where most sales are made. Fortunately US judges, lawyers and lawmakers are more competent and IP protection is much stronger in the US.