Apple confronts LuxPro over iPod shuffle imitator | iLounge News


Apple confronts LuxPro over iPod shuffle imitator

pic After persuading LuxPro to remove its iPod shuffle knock-off from its stand at the CeBIT trade show on Friday, Apple was met with little cooperation on Saturday as the Taiwanese company put the device back on display.

As reported last Thursday, LuxPro’s Super shuffle is nearly indistinguishable from Apple’s iPod shuffle in every way. (See iLounge’s report and photos of the Super shuffle for complete details.)

After news spread of the iPod look-alike last week, Apple lawyers spoke with LuxPro and got the company to remove the device from its CeBIT booth for one day. LuxPro brought the flash-based music player back out on Saturday for weekend visitors.

“Our lawyers are in the process of weighing legal options,” Apple spokesman George Albrecht said.

« PodGuide Generator creates audio tour guides for iPods

Attended an iPod party? Hosted one? Let us know. »

Related Stories



People (as a whole…), are stupid… They want to be in the cliché but they think that they have a god-given-right to anything thay may fancy too.

I pray that before Apple caves in to there laughable demands. That they actually would care enough to look at mine (and others here), and implment Gapless Playback on all iPod Models!#

Well ok the next one then…

Posted by Ichijoe in Deutschland on March 14, 2005 at 10:19 AM (CST)


Just curious, what actual law has been is being broken here?  Knockoffs exist for lots of products.  It’s unethical to make one, but it is illegal?  This is further componded by at least three jurisdictions.  I could see a patent on the clickwheel, but this thing doesn’t have one.  Copyright just doesn’t make sense for this thing and it not a trademark.

Not that I’d but either, <=1gb isn’t enough space for me, and I need a display…

Posted by __redruM in Gaithersburg, MD on March 14, 2005 at 10:43 AM (CST)


Next thought, the apple shuffle just came out.  How’d this company knock it off so quick.  Did they have inside help?

Posted by __redruM in Gaithersburg, MD on March 14, 2005 at 10:46 AM (CST)


IP Law (Intelectual Property), for one if you have seen any of the more tradinal ‘Banner Ad’s’ you’d see why they were infriging Copyrights Law too…

Posted by Ichijoe in Deutschland on March 14, 2005 at 10:49 AM (CST)


It’s just likely that they were quick that’s all. Your fogetting that this thing was made in Taiwan! The home Market for cheap Electronics.

Besides it’s not like they’d have enough Stock to move any (if at all!), to sell at the moment anyway, my guess that thing at CeBIT was a prototype. (or so LuxPro will clame)...

Posted by Ichijoe in Deutschland on March 14, 2005 at 10:54 AM (CST)


i’d buy one of these but then i couldnt tell my friends im better then them without the apple logo

Posted by brian jay kay on March 14, 2005 at 10:55 AM (CST)


The Device (by itself), is probably not the problem. Like others here have already stated theres nothing really pattenable with the Shuffle. It is just another USB Stick. Humm Could be why Apple didn’t choose to use an OLCD / LCD Display. (One wonders!

But, when Luxpro went and riped-offed Apples ‘Shadow-People’... Well now that ment War! And most People here knew that!

Posted by Ichijoe in Deutschland on March 14, 2005 at 10:59 AM (CST)


Low-quality hit-or-miss FM that requires the use of special headphones. OK. Does this player play Audiobooks? Most non-iPods don’t. That seems a little more important.

Posted by Nagromme on March 14, 2005 at 11:24 AM (CST)


As I mentioned in the other thread about this Chinese-ripoff, I’m far from being one of the many here who are dyed in the wool Apple fans who think everything Apple does is gold and everyone else are just jealous wannabes, but in this case, I back Apple all the way.

The good thing about this becoming a high-profile issue is that when Apple shuts these thieves down, I hope it is done in a very loud and demonstrative way that gets alot of mainstream media attention, not just in the Apple/iPod/ and the electronic gadgets corner CNN and the like. I mean BIG mainstream media coverage. And, if they could jail some people (doubtful, given the ways law enforcement in places like China run) all the better.

A message needs to be sent loud and clear to those over there that this kind of thievery will not be tolerated. You can’t just rip off somone else’s product, stick in a 10-cent fm tuner and call it a different and “better” product. Especially when it is so blantantly obvious their intent is to deceive people with the product’s name, look and feel and those cloned sillouhette ads.

Shut ‘em and and take ‘em down HARD.

Posted by jinzo-ningen on March 14, 2005 at 12:04 PM (CST)



Posted by MuSiCrOoM in The World on March 14, 2005 at 12:17 PM (CST)


-> Nagromme
My guess is that it would; So long as it was in the Audible .AA File Format.

But, heres a big question if the Shuffle were only able to run on the WMP-X(10), with no Smart Playlists at-al. Would it sell so well?!?!

And don’t come telling me to go and buy some one eles crapy $30.00(USD) Mediaplayer either iTune and that crapy M$ Player are free and thuss the only standerd to go on!

Posted by Ichijoe in Deutschland on March 14, 2005 at 12:30 PM (CST)


Posted by Mac Daddy:
“Can anyone tell me why is CodeMonkey registered on this site?”

Because I use an iPod and believe the iPod + iTunes to be the best of breed DAP *currently*. However, I do not believe Apple is a very good company and I don’t think many of their products are very good. I switched from Macs to PCs several years ago because Apple treated their customers as less than garbage and I’m angry to see the same sort of mentality begin to raise its head with the iPod line now that they think they have a cult following that negates normal competition.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on March 14, 2005 at 12:52 PM (CST)


How many portable cassette players looked alike during the 80s? Crying out loud.

They should change the name and not use “Shuffle”, but they have every right to make this product. It IS better than the Shuffle, runs different software, different hardware.

Posted by Aaron Paulley on March 14, 2005 at 1:37 PM (CST)



They seem to think they have legal power in Asia. Sue this, sue that. LOL.

BMW and Mercedes-Benz have had their vehicle bodies copied in China. There’s a vehicle that consists of a Mercedes front and a BMW rear. The Honda CR-V, Nissian Frontier, and Chevrolet Spark have all been copied by Chinese auto companies.

Apple legal won’t be able to do anything about it.

Posted by JPack on March 14, 2005 at 1:49 PM (CST)


Yes but even if Apple legal can’t do anything, there will still be masses of crowds who refuse to buy the super shuffle, thus lowering the consumer crowd. But those who buy the shuffle are indirectly supporting such acts of copyright.

the iPod shuffle comes from an icon family and that’s why people love it so much. You might not be able to tell the differences between the two shuffles at first glance but soon you will clearly see that Apple’s trumps LuxPro’s. No matter how hard LuxPro tries, they can’t get into the same market as Apple because clearly Apple has class and LuxPro doesn’t. Maybe a few people will buy LuxPro’s super shuffle but the majority will still be flocking to Apple, no matter how much LuxPro plagiarizes. Plus, I doubt the LuxPro model will even reach the U.S. by the time Apple comes out with a new shuffle. LuxPro is behind in the technology business, and it would take them a great deal of hard work to catch up.

Posted by greencoffeebean on March 14, 2005 at 2:13 PM (CST)


When I go to the grocery store I can buy generic Cheerios.  How is this different?

I mean, I think it is sketchy, certainly, but I’m not sure it is illegal… though, admittedly, I am not an expert by any stretch.

And can you really sue someone for using a silhouette?

Posted by djfeld01 on March 14, 2005 at 2:21 PM (CST)


The radio vs. no radio debate is so tired.  Why does this keep coming up?  It just seems to demonstrate people’s lack of objectivity and understanding for other’s preferences.

If you like radio then buy a player with one, if you don’t then don’t…both are groovy as long as you get what you want.

Just because you buy a DAP does not mean that there is no reason for some to want a radio.

Posted by drk_lre on March 14, 2005 at 2:54 PM (CST)


-> djfeld01

No mabye not, solong as that ‘Silioutte’ was not Trademarked; Like Coca Colas’ ‘Real Thing’ Logo. In this case yes one would think that Apple would / should have a case here to cry faul. As it’s a safe bet that Apple (or whoever did the Ad’s for Apple), had them Trademarked to Apple.

Posted by Ichijoe in Deutschland on March 14, 2005 at 3:21 PM (CST)


Can anyone tell me why is CodeMonkey registered on this site?

By mac daddy on Mar 14, 05 8:33 am

Why not?Is it because all you wanna hear about apple products are the the good things? Get a life!

Posted by timethinker in philippines on March 14, 2005 at 4:58 PM (CST)


Cassette players all looked the same? Come on. Nobody can REALLY be this stupid. That comparison is apples (no pun intended) and oranges.

Many players may have had the same basic form factor, but they looked cosmetically very distinguishable from one another AND no one used “Walkman” in their product’s name except for Sony. Well, except, again, for the Chinese counterfeit makers (who are only one step below companies like Luxpro) who tried to sell knockoffs as the genuine article.

Sony, Panasonic. Aiwa, Toshiba, GE, etc. all manufactured tape playing products, but each tried to distinguish themselves from their competitors by adding their own features and UI that they believed consumers would want over their competition. They didn’t try to deceive people into believing they were buying a “newer, better” model of a competitors line. Or ride on the advertising coattails of a rival brand, the way Luxpro is obviously doing.

And, as for ring-shaped oat-based breakfast cereals, the patent (if there ever was any) on that shape for oat cereals probably ran out or something to that effect, while the name “Cherrios” is still held as a trademark by General Mills. That’s why you don’t see those bagged and boxed look alikes called “Generic Cherrios”.

Posted by jinzo-ningen on March 14, 2005 at 5:34 PM (CST)

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy