Luxpro wins legal battle with Apple, plans to countersue for $100m | iLounge News


Luxpro wins legal battle with Apple, plans to countersue for $100m


Luxpro, the Taiwan-based company known for its iPod shuffle knock-off, says it has won a lawsuit filed against it by Apple, and now plans to countersue the iPod maker for $100 million in damages. “We plan to sue Apple in a Taiwanese court before the end of the month and demand $100 million in compensation for the revenues we have lost due to their abuse of their global power,” Wu Fu-chin, Luxpro chairman, told the Financial Times.

In early 2005, Luxpro introduced a digital audio player that was nearly indistinguishable from Apple’s first-generation iPod shuffle. The Super Shuffle, later renamed the Super Tangent, had the same measurements, weight and overall design—including the control pad, backside slider switches and USB port cover—of the iPod shuffle. It also came in 512MB and 1GB sizes like the Apple player.

In August 2005, Apple sought and received an injunction to stop sales of the Luxpro player from the Shihlin District Court in Taipei. 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, stating that “the appearances of the two products are significantly dissimilar.”

Related Stories



How could they lose that one?

It boggles the mind.

Posted by mattwardfh on January 4, 2007 at 9:12 PM (CST)


Are you kidding?  If this is the white player that iLounge featured before in one of its Holiday Guides, it looks exactly like the shuffle, only misshapen. 

If you need any more proof that this thing was a knock-off, it was even called the “Super Shuffle”! 

Apple got screwed.

Posted by james00 on January 4, 2007 at 9:15 PM (CST)


I’m in shock….are Tiawanese courts that corrupt?  The look and feel of the product and the advertising are blatant ripoffs of the 1G shuffle.  I can see official policy allowing ripoffs perhaps….but to claim the products appear significantly dissimilar…..I’m really confused by this.

Posted by taffinito on January 4, 2007 at 9:21 PM (CST)


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.

Posted by Matt on January 4, 2007 at 9:26 PM (CST)


I seem to remember Apple suing Microsoft over look and feel of windows…  They lost that one too…  Good for Luxpro…

Posted by dsfdfsdf sdfsdf on January 4, 2007 at 9:45 PM (CST)


Apple lost the Windows lawsuit because they had licensed GUI elements to Microsoft for Windows 1.0.

Posted by Kevin Crossman on January 4, 2007 at 10:23 PM (CST)


I am thinking the Shihlin judge, who awarded the first injunction, and Luxpro’s CEO must play golf on the weekends?

Posted by essbee on January 4, 2007 at 10:24 PM (CST)


Under chen shui bien corruption & injustice wins everytime.

Posted by invisible on January 4, 2007 at 11:29 PM (CST)


Oh come on! How many times do you think Apple payed its way to a win in court? Lots of times that’s how many. This is just a case of paying the judge too little. And if you think Apple is this iPod-esque white knight, you’re dreaming a good, but fake, dream.

Posted by Just me on January 4, 2007 at 11:36 PM (CST)


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.

Posted by mjhsieh on January 5, 2007 at 1:22 AM (CST)



Posted by Joshdude on January 5, 2007 at 2:35 AM (CST)


in other unrelated news, Taiwanese judges were caught smoking crack…

Posted by crack on January 5, 2007 at 2:46 AM (CST)


Everyone please calm down. The news is simply reporting an announcement from the sued company itself. The real verdict is that the Luxpro is indeed copying ipod shuffle intentionally. The court is simply denying some requests(like provisional seizure) from Apple since the product has already been banned from stores.

Posted by Not True on January 5, 2007 at 4:24 AM (CST)


The trolls are out in full force today…

Posted by dimebag on January 5, 2007 at 9:42 AM (CST)


In reply to “dsfdfsdf sdfsdf” and “Kevin Crossman”, I would just like to add, for those that don’t know - Apple was looking to continue using Microsoft’s BASIC for the Apple II (Woz never got round to completing his version), so Microsoft wrote into the contract that Apple had to give up the development of their own MacBasic and allow them to use Mac GUI elements in their own software. At the time Apple signed because they wanted Microsoft’s apps on Mac to look and feel the same as the rest of the apps on Mac (makes sense…), but then it came back to haunt them when they released Windows and the courts said they where within their rights to release this knock-off, because Apple had more-or-less granted them permission. Biggest. Mistake. Ever. Thanks John :p

Posted by Levi on January 5, 2007 at 9:27 PM (CST)


Hmm there are some to be some errors in that last comment, Levi.

First of all BASIC existed, I think it was the floating point version that was licensed from Microsoft as Applesoft BASIC. That’s just a minor quibble.

Second, I don’t think it was MacBasic that caused the loss of the look-and-feel lawsuit. It was the Apple’s license that allowed Microsoft to make Windows 1.0 that was interpreted very broadly to allow them invalidate look-and-feel.

Microsoft got Apple to kill MacBasic development and surrender the code to Microsoft in return for the Applesoft BASIC extension. If he had asked, Bill Gates could have asked for and gotten the a lot more (perhaps the entire rights to develop a Mac-like OS on DOS and avoided look-and-feel altogether) instead, because given the huge sales of the Apple II, he had Apple by the balls. If it is anyone’s mistake, it was Bill Gates’s which I believe is one of his largest regrets that he didn’t ask for more.

I know where this stuff is coming from. It comes from here:

But that story is full of errors. For instance, the Applesoft BASIC license didn’t expire until 1987, not 1985 as it said.


Posted by terry chay on January 5, 2007 at 10:16 PM (CST)



Posted by Mike on January 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM (CST)


Typical domestic protectionism lawsuit. It happens everyday. Shame on the Taiwanese courts for trying to steal a quick buck for their shameless bootleggers.

Posted by injustice on January 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM (CST)



Posted by you'll never know! on January 7, 2007 at 11:21 PM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

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 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy