Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

The Super Shuffle....what a rip off!

8K views 60 replies 28 participants last post by  MacME 
#1 ·
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000857035387/

From engadget:
" You hear that? It’s the sound of Stevie J. letting loose a thousand lawyers on the people at Luxpro who think that they’re somehow not going to get the crap sued out of them over the “Super Shuffle,” a flash-based MP3 player that looks so very, very familiar to us. Supposedly the Super Shuffle MX-575D/1075D has the same weight as the iPod shuffle, but is slightly larger (8.4 x 2.5 x 0.84mm for the shuffle vs. 8.5 x 2.5 x 0.97 for the Super Shuffle) and comes with a built-in FM tuner, comes in 512MB and 1GB flavors, and offers support for playback of MP3, WMA, and WAV files."

Link to actual site: http://www.luxpro-corp.com/e_575d.htm

I wonder if it works with iTunes? They'll probably get a letter from Apple's legal department soon...
 
#28 · (Edited)
Well, that trade show picture is pretty convincing. No doubt these folks seriously want to challenge Apple head-on, considering the pilfered look of the advertising. If they don't have some verry deep pockets I'd say they're going to by roadkill.

I'd bet the month won't end before <i>at least</i> the name, colour, and ad campaign for the device have all been changed.
 
#29 ·
Yup. Just cleared my cache and then got the unavailable page.

Or maybe I scared them off with the email I sent them yesterday, stating that Apple was going to kick their legal ass. :D
 
#31 · (Edited)
$100.00 says I'm not the only one that emailed them :D
 
#33 ·
LOL! Just check the landfill nearest Apple's headquarters in about three weeks :D
 
#35 ·
#36 ·
Of course its cheaper than an Apple shuffle. They didn't have to pay for the design, the marketing, the testing of the market. Taiwan is becoming more sensitive to this sort of blatant rip-off because their companies are the ones being sub-contracted by the likes of Apple to build products and this market is shifting to Malaysia and Korea. Intellectual property and copyright laws do exist in Taiwan and this sort of rip-off is a perfect example of breach.

Reminds me of the rip-offs of designer handbags and the like (eBay is awash with them). Not that I'm in the market! :)
 
#37 ·
Finally there's more news coverage on the super shuffle (saw it on google news):

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050315PR208.html
Taiwan made iPod shuffle-like MP3 player draws concern from Apple
Luxpro displayed its Super Shuffle MP3 player at CeBIT and drew concern from Apple for its similarities with the Apple-made iPod shuffle. According to an interview conducted by the Chinese-language Economic Daily News (EDN, Luxpro said that although their product may look like the iPod shuffle, it differs internally and includes an FM radio and voice recorder. Luxpro’s Chairman Fu-Ching Wu told EDN that patents do not cover appearance.

Apple 'distraught' over iPod copy
http://p2pnet.net/story/4212
-Note that they even stole the IPod Shuffle ad...I mean that has to be copyright infringement? Isn't that the exact ad?
 
#38 ·
cutehinano said:
Their product may look like the iPod shuffle, (but) it differs internally and includes an FM radio and voice recorder. Luxpro’s Chairman Fu-Ching Wu told EDN that patents do not cover appearance.
I dunno about that one, Luxpro; The eMachines iMac ripoff had different internals and wasn't even as blatantt a ripoff as this shuffle one is. Apple got them shut down. Maybe the laws are different in China, though? If emachines is a precedent though, maybe they'll get it banned in several parts of the world but not all of them?

And their ads are TOTALLY copyright infringement.
 
#39 ·
I think the big lesson LuxPro is about to learn is that there's more to intellectual property than just patents. "Trade dress" is a phrase I've seen much lately, and the idea seems to be that it's an IP infringement (trademark or copyright? not sure) to attempt to confuse consumers by adopting your competitor's appearances. I'm sure Apple will have much success keeping these things off the shelves, at least in the U.S., Canada and Europe.
 
#41 ·
It's Taiwan, not China (unless you subscribe to the One China policy of the US). Taiwan has a lot more to lose in terms of intellectual property agreements and US outsourcing. Taiwan has a very successful chip sector (and a massive chip development program at ITRI) which is under pressure from cheaper competitors such as Malaysia.

The fact that Apple outsources iPods to companies in Taiwan will give it significant clout over getting this product pulled. They can simply switch contracts to other out-sourcers in the Far East. Add to this the possibility that the shuffle design and moulds were leaked from the subcontractor, and there may even be industrial theft involved (the Taiwanese government cannot be seen to allow such practices).
 
#42 ·
ice_hackey said:
Gimmie gimmie gimmie.
I heard there's a car coming out called the "Frod Super Mustang". Looks just like a Ford Mustang, has similar innards (only different), and comes with more standard features than the Ford version...all for slightly less money.

Apparently this is OK because you can't patent a design, and the Frod does things a bit differently inside. Nobody really minds that the producers of the Frod are only able to offer their product more cheaply because they didn't have to invest anything in design or marketing. Hey, it's got more features for less money, so consumers win! Besides, Ford is a megacorporation and Frod is just a humble no-name Asian manufacturer, therefore Ford's interests and intellectual property have no bearing on the matter.

BTW, enjoy your Super Shuffle when it arrives!
 
#43 ·
iMatt said:
Apparently this is OK because you can't patent a design, and the Frod does things a bit differently inside.
You cant patent a design but you have an automatic copyright over it, as long as it is original and not trivial.

And that Frod thing would never stand a chance in court, at least in America and Europe. Simply because they try to trick the customer to believe that they are the same product by having such a similar brand name. Talking of brand name, Mustang is already copyrighted for cars so no go there too...

Patents laws are stupid and ridiculous but copyright laws arent and offer much better protection than what you might think simply because the charge is always put on the defendant while in other type of court you need to prove your accusation. This is why you always need to document and time stamp your idea/text/pics.
 
#45 ·
iMatt - thanks. I will enjoy it! I doubt I'll use it. I just *want* it. I'm only buying for it's novelty factor. :)

Miguel - those are US patents. Fortunately US isn't ruling the world yet, so they aren't worth the (digital) paper they are printed on -- in this situation.

One of my close friends is a lawyer, specializing in intellectual property... I will forward this to her.
 
#47 ·
Mantat said:
You cant patent a design but you have an automatic copyright over it, as long as it is original and not trivial.

And that Frod thing would never stand a chance in court, at least in America and Europe. Simply because they try to trick the customer to believe that they are the same product by having such a similar brand name. Talking of brand name, Mustang is already copyrighted for cars so no go there too...
And the big difference between my fictional Super Mustang and the real-life Super Shuffle case is that "Mustang" is a much better established brand for cars than "Shuffle" is for music players. That's it, as far as I can see.

Therefore I find it strange that so many people (though not very many here) are willing to give Lux-Pro a free pass. I suspect it's a kind of anti-Apple backlash: because Apple has taken some unpopular legal action recently, some people have decided that <i>any</i> legal action from Apple is frivolous or petty. In this case, though, it's surprising there's any debate at all. The Super Shuffle people are rip-off artists, pure and simple.
 
#49 ·
AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa!

Nasty!
 
#50 ·
But in this case, despite the blatant ripoff of the name (oh wait, I suppose different capitalization is "different enough") there <i>is</i> at least an attempt to look somewhat different, including the addition of new buttons. It also looks like that clickwheel is not a touch-sensitive device like Apple's...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top