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).

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!

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.

actually you can patent a design. here are but a couple of apple's design patents. if you want to see more, go to the uspto.gov website and look up patent numbers beginning with "d".

[o.t.] anyone know how to make the image appear in the post rather than as a thumbnail?

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.

If true ... this company is going to have their a$$ handed to them. Unleash the flesh-eating lawyers ...

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.

Oh look! Here is another blatant rip-off!

AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaa!

Nasty!

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...