RSSTaiwanese MP3 maker charges Apple again with illegal monopoly
By Tim Conneally | Published October 20, 2008, 5:20 PM
Tenacious Taiwanese MP3 player company Luxpro has yet again engaged in litigation with Apple over its Super Tangent (nee Super Shuffle) MP3 player.
In 2005, Luxpro debuted an MP3 device called the "Super Shuffle," a screenless media player that looked nearly identical to Apple's First Generation iPod Shuffle. Apple won an injunction against the device for its use of "shuffle" in the name.
The Taiwanese company changed the name of the device to the "Super Tangent" and proceeded to sell its product, despite numerous cease and desist orders from Cupertino. Apple sued for, and won, a preliminary injunction on all of Luxpro's products in Taiwan.
Luxpro appealed this suit and eventually won, but then sued Apple for $100 million, alleging engagement in unfair trade practices.
Now, Apple has been sued by Luxpro yet again, this time in the Western district of Arkansas. The Taiwanese company claims that Apple's attempts to "squash the success Luxpro had achieved through lawful efforts to compete in the worldwide MP3 player market."
The company said that Apple's lawsuits prevented Luxpro from marketing, manufacturing and advertising its products, for improperly obtaining an injunction that forced Luxpro to break contracts and orders, and for causing the deterioration of its relationships with materials vendors.
Its complaint, filed last Tuesday, reads, "Apple furthered its unending aspiration to monopolize the worldwide MP3 player market by preventing fair competition from smaller MP3 player manufacturers like Luxpro."
Luxpro says it was intentionally targeted by Apple who "realized its strongest threat in the MP3 player market included mid-range and small-range manufacturers," and sought to "conquer smaller competitors such as Luxpro to prevent an increased market share among the smaller-ranged manufacturers."
Okay...
They are an MP3 player maker, not an MP3 maker.
Or do they make Taiwanese MP3's as well? ;-)
Score: 0
Furthermore, the term "shuffle" has appeared on personal media devices at least since the mid 1980's when it was featured on the very first personal c.d. players. Apple had some big cojones to claim such a generic term as their own and whatever court upheld that erred tragically. "Shuffle" describes a basic and generic playback functionality and in no way represented a breakthrough or established trademark of Apple Computer at the time they forced the name-change.
Score: 0
So Apple did not trademark the name in reference to the interface?
Gee, its a shame LuxPro didn't call you initially...
So are you going to elaborate on how MS should not be able to trademark the name Windows - for which it is, at best, a mediocre implimentation?
Score: 0
I think "Blatant Copying" is something the patent office decides, is it not? The way to defeat knockoffs is to outperform them. The iPod's spotty history of customer dis-satisfaction and service/warranty horror stories goes to show where they preferred to channel their energies. If an injunction is brought and patents are found to have not been violated, then the party bringing the injunction should bear some responsibility for its consequences. If this is not the case, then the process of injunction becomes an effective form of harassment and business interruption. I believe this to be the basis of the current suit and I am wholly in agreement with its foundations as such. The "big guys" are always using the courts to stifle the little guys and keep competition from growing in a free and fair market. Cases such as this are important to the freedoms of everyone.
Score: 0
Hogwash, Balderdash and Piffle.
Blatant copying. Injunction was rightly served.
Score: 0