toggle

AAPL Stock: 562.29 ( -3.03 )

Luxpro to sue Apple for $100m over Shuffle knockoff

updated 07:35 pm EST, Thu January 4, 2007

Luxpro to countersue Apple


Luxpro says it will countersue Apple for $100 million in damages after the Taiwan-based electronics company won lawsuit filed against it by Apple over the "Super Shuffle", an iPod shuffle knockoff that debuted in March of 2005. According to The Financial Times, the company will file a countersuit for monetary damages related to lost revenues, after the company was successful in pressuring Luxpro to remove the device from CeBIT on the first day. "We plan to sue Apple in a Taiwanese court before the end of the month and demand $100m in compensation for the revenues we have lost due to their abuse of their global power," Wu Fu-chin, Luxpro chairman, told the publication.

The Taiwan-based company raised eyebrows at the CeBIT 2005 technology show in Germany when it launched an MP3 player that looked similar to Apple's previous-generation iPod shuffle.

According to the report, the similarly named media player had almost the same measurements and weight, came in a white plastic casing and had similar buttons on the front. The player drew mixed reviews from the media after the company used a different name to market device.

Later that year, the company unveiled a modified version at Computex 2005 called the MX-585D, which offered a 64X48-resolution OLED display and sported compatibility with three audio formats, including MP3, WMA and WAV.


by MacNN Staff

TAGS :

 Apple
toggle

Comments

  1. mgpalma

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2000

    0

    they will

    fail. Losers.

  1. slider

    Mac Elite

    Joined: Oct 1999

    0

    Huh?

    How in the h*** could they have lost? It's more obvious than the old iMac eMachine case. Good lord.

  1. Cadaver

    Addicted to MacNN

    Joined: Jan 2003

    0

    re: huh?

    Taiwan courts... that's how Apple lost. Did you really think that the Taiwanese courts would hold a judgement against a local Taiwanese company (no matter how illegal their actions) brought upon by an evil Western (especially American) company.

    One of the "judges" who ruled against Apple said the SuperShuffle was "substantially different in appearance and function." Yeah, right.

  1. iChick

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2001

    0

    wu fu chin

    yoo a foo, chin

  1. ender

    Junior Member

    Joined: Mar 1999

    0

    re: huh?

    I agree, I don't see how Apple could have possibly lost the lawsuit unless the court was "retaliating" against Apple for buying up so much of the Samsung flash capacity (and thereby supposedly preventing other Taiwanese manufactures from being able to make players of their own).

    And if Apple loses this new suit, there is really something fishy going. First of all, I highly doubt one day of not being on display caused $100 million in lost profit. Secondly, it's not like Apple forcibly removed them from the show. They "persuaded" them to not display their product. It's not like they held a gun to their head or threatened to break the kneecaps or anything.

  1. sixcolors

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Oct 2001

    0

    Well actually

    Steve jobs has been known to impart violence on products he has distain for.

  1. jhorvatic

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 2005

    0

    Judge paid off Millions!

    Bias Taiwanese court judge payed off millions to give Luxpro the win in court! That's the only way they could have won this blatent clone of Apple's product. No sane judge in the United States could ever rule in favor of Luxpro. Fortunately Apple has already got an even better player the shuffle 2 so they can sell there little cheap a** clone here now and no one will buy it anyways. Take your measely 100 million and fade away to your own country forever!

  1. jstephe

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 2006

    0

    re huh? ender

    It could be they are trying to recoup there legal fees, $100,000,000 Taiwan Dollars is $3,088,784 U.S.

  1. corsair

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2005

    0

    deleted

    deleted

  1. ender

    Junior Member

    Joined: Mar 1999

    0

    re: huh?

    Actually, I found another (much more detailed) description of the situation on another Mac site (I think it was AppleInsider). MacNN's article implies they were seaking compensation for the CeBIT thing. Actually, Apple won the initial lawsuit in Taiwanese court. It was appleased to their High Court and then their Supreme Court where the ruling was overturned. During the appeals they were prevented from selling their knock-off. It's the lost sales over that 18-month period they are now suing over.

    Even still, I don't see how Apple can be held liable for that (well, except in the obviously screwed up Taiwanese legal system). The lower court order is what banned them from selling their product. Apple followed the proper channels, the court agreed with their complaint. How can Apple be held liable for the judge's order, even it it was later overturned by a higher court? Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if that was the norm? If every victor in a court battle could later be held liable if the court's ruling was later overturned?

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker

iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...

Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover

One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...

Logitech UE Air Speaker

If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...

toggle

Most Commented