iPod shuffle rip-off maker Luxpro’s Chairman: patents do not cover appearance

“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, 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,” DigiTimes reports.

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: It is called “trade dress infringement” and Apple has won similar cases in the past, for example, the original iMac and Daewoo/eMachines knock-off eOne: http://www.apple.com/uk/pr/0310_daewoo.html

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple moves to stop CeBIT presentation of Luxpro’s ‘Super shuffle’ iPod shuffle rip-off – March 14, 2005
Attention Apple Legal Dept: LuxPro debuts blatant ‘iPod shuffle’ rip-off called ‘Super shuffle’ – March 10, 2005


  1. So patents don’t cover appearance eh?

    This guy is speaking out of his ass!

    What is the pont of having a patent if it dosn’t cover appearance??

    That whole patent system is a joke if this is the case! – It does not protect any businesses products/assets.

    I tell you what – I think I will bring out a games console exactly like the Xbox and call it the ibox!


  2. Yeah, as soon as someone does something against Apple, people start complaining. Get over it for god’s sake. It’s a free country, and even if it is patented, it’s useless, and maybe Apple can learn to implement an FM tuner and the ability to play WMAs, otherwise I’m staying with Creative. Most online music stores only sell WMAs, not ACC or MP3 because the compression is better and the quality higher.

  3. norman,

    Get your head out of your ass.

    America may be a ‘free’ country, but that doesn’t mean we can do whatever the hell we want, whenever we want. Oh, and by the way, China is a Totalitarian State hiding behind a Socialist facade. Get over it.

    Go troll somewhere else. Dickhead.

  4. I’m astonished by this company.

    Not only did they blatently copy the iPod and its’ name. They copied the marketing materials and visual branding as well. This is a very bold move. They must think as a Chinese company they are beyond Apple’s reach or that they can sell enough in China before they get shut down to make a nice profit.

    There is no way that Apple will tolerate this. The papers are being drafted right now and it will not take long for Apple to sue.

  5. God I would hate to work for a company that has so little pride that it so blatantly copies another product. Have they no shame?

    Pictures of the E-machines/Daewoo knockoffs here.

  6. Oh but I WOULD like to see voice recording and FM added to the shuffle. That wouldn’t be copying would it? ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue rolleye” style=”border:0;” />

  7. On my visits to China, I was shocked to see the colored CRT iMac clones in the windows of stores. Same shape and colors w/a little different appearance on the face. Win$in OS in Chinese. This was four years ago.

  8. Who gives a toss about Chinese law? This is a Taiwanese company, and as Taiwan (China Taipei, if you wish) are a member of the WTO, they are bound by it’s rules.

    Silly buggers will be protesting all the way to bankruptcy court.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.