Funny? How would you like your secrets exposed so that your competitors knew your plans bedore you had a chance to implement them. PowerPage, ThinkSecret, et al are hurting the company that is their reason for being by publishing details released illegally.

Surely Apple has some recourse with the Taiwanese company. Apple has many costs (R&D, design, advertising, etc.) that some small producer of knock-offs doesn't have. Luxpro is being grossly unfair.

This is going to make things _worse_ for PowerPage and the others. Apple will now be able to point to a product obviously copied directly from one of theirs and say that _this_ is why they _must_ protect their trade secrets. If, as seems likely, Apple won't be able to do much to stop the Super Shuffle itself outside of the US, they _will_ be going after those they can nail. Perhaps before this they merely wanted the names of the leakers, but now they'll be wanting _blood_. Someone is going to have to pay for those lost sales.

--------
I'd be a little more sympathetic to Apple if they didn't decide to litigate the h*** out of PowerPage, ThinkSecret, et al. It's nice to see David pick on Goliath once in awhile.
--------

I'd be a little more sympathetic if people understood what Apple "litigating" Thinksecret was about. I don't begrudge Thinksecret saying whatever the heck they want, whenever they want, but I do believe that if they come across illegally obtained information, and know it to be illegally obtained, they can be subpoenaed to provide the sources of that information if they publish it.

I fail to see how a subpoena to provide a source constitutes "litigating the h*** out of" them. And so far, the law seems to agree that Apple has a legitimate claim. It would be one thing for them to try to shut down the rumor sites, or sue the rumor sites for damages, but come on, they're just trying to find the guy violating his legal contract.

As to David vs. Goliath, I fail to see how Luxpro represents a David to our Goliath. Nobody is being victimized by Apple's dominance in the MP3 player market.

Furthermore, the second that knockoffs of this flagrancy become legal, forget about creativity and innovation in the marketplace. No one will be willing to front the R&D or marketing for a product that they won't make any money off of. It is the worst kind of naivety to think otherwise.

--------
This is going to make things _worse_ for PowerPage and the others. Apple will now be able to point to a product obviously copied directly from one of theirs and say that _this_ is why they _must_ protect their trade secrets. If, as seems likely, Apple won't be able to do much to stop the Super Shuffle itself outside of the US, they _will_ be going after those they can nail. Perhaps before this they merely wanted the names of the leakers, but now they'll be wanting _blood_. Someone is going to have to pay for those lost sales.
--------

Take a deep breath. This doesn't mean anything for the rumor sites. Apple Legal is not some irrational, frothing at the mouth, engine of righteous vengeance. They pursued a subpoena to be provided a source that leaked confidential company information, a source and a set of information that has _nothing_ to do with the Super Shuffle business in any way, shape, or form.

They're not out for blood, they're not howling at the moon, and this means zero for the rumor sites, especially since it's not the rumor sites that Apple is after.

Last I checked, the SuperShuffle was MORE expensive for the same capacity and no AAC decoding. Also, since I there's no value to me in the extras, I'd be paying more, for less, because I'd have to recode my entire library.

____
Take a deep breath. This doesn't mean anything for the rumor sites. Apple Legal is not some irrational, frothing at the mouth, engine of righteous vengeance. They pursued a subpoena to be provided a source that leaked confidential company information, a source and a set of information that has _nothing_ to do with the Super Shuffle business in any way, shape, or form.

They're not out for blood, they're not howling at the moon, and this means zero for the rumor sites, especially since it's not the rumor sites that Apple is after.
_______

Apple Legal Is _not_ a bunch of irrational, frothing at the mouth, engines of vengence?! Aren't they all California Lawyers? I thought that all members of the California Bar got their Engine of Vengence card on passing the bar exam.

And the only way that Super Shuffle won't be used as an example of why protecting trade secrets is important would be if one of those sites didn't run a pic of the iPod shuffle prior to its unveiling. I don't know, I don't go to those sites, but if even one of 'em had a pic, then Apple can and almost certainly will put that pic up next to an actual iPod shuffle and a Super Shuffle and use the trio as a little visual aide as to exactly what they're trying to defend.

The player offers besides all functions present in the genuine iPod shuffle an FM tuner, a WMA (DRM) playing capability and voice recording.

So, the "Super Shuffle" plays iTunes Music Store purchases then?

I can't wait to buy one of these Luxpro units. Anyone know of a retailer?

About 10 of my friends want one also. The FM tuner and voice recording are the clinchers.

Actually, I'm not a PC troll. I'm a dyed in the wool Mac user, that just doesn't happen to be a SHEEP.

----------------------
I'd be a little more sympathetic if people understood what Apple "litigating" Thinksecret was about. I don't begrudge Thinksecret saying whatever the heck they want, whenever they want, but I do believe that if they come across illegally obtained information, and know it to be illegally obtained, they can be subpoenaed to provide the sources of that information if they publish it.
--------------------

No, they did nothing illegal, get it? They source of those rumors did, not them. These sites merely gave Apple some free press in advance of what they wanted. And since they are legitimate forms of the press (much more than CNN or FOX IMHO), they cannot be told to reveal their sources. Then again, maybe you like the idea of throwing out the constitution and the bill of rights whenever someone with high powered attorneys decides to rig the game.

-------------
I fail to see how a subpoena to provide a source constitutes "litigating the h*** out of" them. And so far, the law seems to agree that Apple has a legitimate claim. It would be one thing for them to try to shut down the rumor sites, or sue the rumor sites for damages, but come on, they're just trying to find the guy violating his legal contract.
------------
Unfortunately, DAVID has little financial standing to fight back, and has to rely on the EFF and donations. Unfortunately, this lower court made an INAPPROPRIATE RULING that should be struck down. Otherwise, you can kiss your press freedoms goodbye in this country. Then again, then only real news you get these days is on the internet, so maybe it's part of the 'plan'.

------------
As to David vs. Goliath, I fail to see how Luxpro represents a David to our Goliath. Nobody is being victimized by Apple's dominance in the MP3 player market.
-------

BS! Apple's dominance is based on the perception of style and function, and a monopoly of it's players only being compatible with its iTunes store. If a little guy is going to make an iPod like device, more power to him. I have to admit that using an Apple in the product literature is a bit much.

---------
Furthermore, the second that knockoffs of this flagrancy become legal, forget about creativity and innovation in the marketplace. No one will be willing to front the R&D or marketing for a product that they won't make any money off of. It is the worst kind of naivety to think otherwise.
-----------

Give me a break! There is no innovation in the Shuffle, except for its shape and color. None. And Apple isn't making much money off the Shuffle, by reports I've read. It's all about the monopoly on the iTunes store. If someone was to freaking come out with an identical technology and circuitry in a product, Apple may have a legitimate complaint. Unfortunately, Apple is using manufacturing in mainland China where th

[i]"So, the 'Super Shuffle' plays iTunes Music Store purchases then?"[/i]

Nope, but owners will be able to buy from numerous other resellers who offer the same music for a lower price (10-20% less), as well as be able to use subscription services.

With the Super Shuffle, you won't be locked in to having to buy your online music from Apple. You can shop around.

I have 3 macs. I like choices though when it comes to music. Super shuffle has many features. It doesn't look fake. It looks the same. BUT big deal. Socks are socks. Just that these Taiwanese socks keep my feet warmer. All this "intellectual" property is all mass-produced. There's no art here. There is no originality. It's white. In fact I have a shuffle sitting in front of me right now, loaded up with tunes that I had to re-encode to a smaller 128k from 224k in order to fit more songs. I like aac format and am a fan of apple. Itunes music store i can live without. I'd rather buy a higher quality format like CD or DVD and re-encode it AND I'd still have cover art that I can look at, not a pdf file. The taiwanese can do what they like - it's another country. Pop culture has nothing to do with being intellectual. This is the "scene" that Apple has joined. Apple isn't apple anymore. Apple is the new windows.

Hm. According to California state law, distributing material that are trade secrets and are known to be trade secrets by the distributor (or should be known to be trade secrets) is illegal.

No, they did nothing illegal, get it? They source of those rumors did, not them. These sites merely gave Apple some free press in advance of what they wanted. And since they are legitimate forms of the press (much more than CNN or FOX IMHO), they cannot be told to reveal their sources. Then again, maybe you like the idea of throwing out the constitution and the bill of rights whenever someone with high powered attorneys decides to rig the game.


Couple of things. Under california law, they MAY have done an illegal thing (the trade secrets act stuff). You might not like it, but if its a law, its a law. Secondly, Apple is suing to get information from these sites, not suing them for redress (I'm not 100% sure if they are even claiming what the sites did was illegal).

Unfortunately, DAVID has little financial standing to fight back, and has to rely on the EFF and donations. Unfortunately, this lower court made an INAPPROPRIATE RULING that should be struck down. Otherwise, you can kiss your press freedoms goodbye in this country. Then again, then only real news you get these days is on the internet, so maybe it's part of the 'plan'.

Actually, whether the person has or has not the financial clout to fight in court shouldn't be the deciding factor of whether to sue someone (otherwise people will be filing for bankruptcy at the thought of a lawsuit). And whether the judge made a bad ruling is YOUR OPINION, as its apparently your opinion that his opinion is wrong. His ruling was clear and made sense. Just because something is of interest to the public doesn't mean you can post it under the heading of 'in the public interest'. He clarified this context separate from others (such as a cigarette company employee releasing memos that they're trying to addict people to nicotine).

------------
As to David vs. Goliath, I fail to see how Luxpro represents a David to our Goliath. Nobody is being victimized by Apple's dominance in the MP3 player market.
-------

BS! Apple's dominance is based on the perception of style and function, and a monopoly of it's players only being compatible with its iTunes store. If a little guy is going to make an iPod like device, more power to him. I have to admit that using an Apple in the product literature is a bit much.

You missed the point (or disproved your own). There's no David vs. Goliath with the Luxpro vs. Apple. Nothing says LuxPro can't put together an MP3 player. And its not like other companies aren't making slews of them even with Apple's supposed dominance. Its all about wasting time and money on determining a good form factor, only to have someone else just take it and use it. I guess you wouldn't mind if you spent $50,000 of your own money to come out with a grand new design for an MP3 player, then have 62 knock-offs come out the next day with the same basic look, but

---------
Furthermore, the second that knockoffs of this flagrancy become legal, forget about creativity and innovation in the marketplace. No one will be willing to front the R&D or marketing for a product that they won't make any money off of. It is the worst kind of naivety to think otherwise.
-----------

Give me a break! There is no innovation in the Shuffle, except for its shape and color. None. And Apple isn't making much money off the Shuffle, by reports I've read. It's all about the monopoly on the iTunes store. If someone was to freaking come out with an identical technology and circuitry in a product, Apple may have a legitimate complaint. Unfortunately, Apple is using manufacturing in mainland China where th

Technically there's no innovation in most anything that's made. The point is, if Apple can't protect the design of their product from rip-off, then why should Apple waste time with design in the first place? Just for the sheep to buy up, when everyone else is buying it from cheap knock-off vendors. Why waste the money (which is what it would be, a waste) if everyone was going to steal the design anyway? Why should Apple spend a year trying to come up with a grand new design for a computer or iPod and then not get the return out of it. Do you know why most of the MP3 players out there look like c***? Its because none of the companies want to spend the time or money to come up with a good design. They just want to slap something together, stick as many features as they can in there, and start selling.

Oh, and reports I read are that Apple makes a boatload of cash on the shuffle.

Nope, but owners will be able to buy from numerous other resellers who offer the same music for a lower price (10-20% less), as well as be able to use subscription services.

With the Super Shuffle, you won't be locked in to having to buy your online music from Apple. You can shop around.


Who are these 'numerous' other resellers that offer cheaper music? The only one I've seen is Walmart (10% less).

And do you know for sure this product will work with subscription services? I don't see that specifically mentioned anywhere (keeping in mind that uses a completely different DRM than just standard Windows Media DRM).

And anyway you cut it, buying music from any online service (except for a few of the independent thinkers out there) are all DRM'd and, as such, lock you up into some fixed set of controls/computers/players. Anyone who talks choice, and then starts talking any DRM scheme, just don't get it. The only 'real' choice is buying CDs and burning your music your way.

But will the Super shuffle work with the Mac and iTunes?
If not, then its pointless for Mac users.

But of course they still have a big market with the Windows boys.

Apple isn't going to win any awards for making friends with their fan sites...and for that, I hope they rot in a dark, hot place.

on the other hand, this super shuffle thing seems an obvious rip-off...probably highly illegal.

Just because apple is wrong in one case, doesn't mean they are wrong in every case...probably they would be right to have a grievance over the super shuffle.

then again, the super shuffle isn't being run by a poor college student, so apple is probably afraid.

"I would rather spend my money on an original designed product rather than on one of those copycats that looks fake."

Translation: "I like apple's products, and so I'm going to create an irrational justification to prove to everyone the I made the right choice, and that they should do what I do. It makes me feel better about myself."

Clue for the clueless: there's no such thing as an "orginal" product. Wake up, man. Everyone gets ideas from everyone else. If something looks unique, it's just because the person/company spun a few ideas together in a unique way. They might come up with a great combo of features/design, but so are other companies. That's the way the market works.

BTW, I think apple is more embarassed then anything. LuxPro took their own product and made it better. Kinda like Path Finder ripping off the real Finder and giving it the features it should have had in the first place. Nobody seems to b**** about that, but yet it's perfectly ok for apple to rip off Konfabulator and call it "original". Because we all know that everything apple makes is an "original", right?

Please. Some times I get really pissed off at how truly ignorant apple fans can be. You guys are not helping anything by keeping up that "apple innovates, everyone else doesn't" belief. Windows users have long stopped listening to it.

"Mac users and legitimate users of MacNN, don't get pulled in by these PC Trolls."

Wow. What a great assumption! Thank you so much. We don't even have to argue anything at all, we can just call each other names!

Anyone who doesn't like apple, you are now officially a "PC Troll". Please go back under your rock, you (bleep), (bleep), (bleep).

[Logical Fallacy:Changing the Subject:Attacking the Person:the person's character is attacked]
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

"I fail to see how a subpoena to provide a source constitutes "litigating the h*** out of" them."

From ThinkSecret:

(Note: Apple's lawsuit against Think Secret is a separate action from its "John Doe" suit; in the Doe suit Apple did not sue any journalists, but instead sought information through subpoenas to three Mac news Web sites, including Think Secret, concerning a product called "Asteroid." Think Secret has done no original reporting on Asteroid. In contrast, Apple's lawsuit against the dePlume Organization seeks damages from Think Secret, a news organization.)

...if Apple won't provide it (ie fm) then please let someone - I've been waiting for them to introduce something like the PSP for well over a year - guess who will get my $$...

It will only be a matter of time and Apple's lawyers will be all over luxpro and it's ripoff product. I for one don't like copy cats who let others do the work and then rip them off. This is a clear rip off and copycat product from the get go. GO GET'EM APPLE!