Luxpro countersues Apple for $100 million over iPod shuffle knockoff

“Luxpro, a Taiwanese electronics company that won a lawsuit filed against it by Apple over an imitation of the iPod shuffle, intends to countersue Apple for $100m in damages,” Kathrin Hille ireports for The Financial Times.

“‘We plan to sue Apple in a Taiwanese court before the end of the month and demand $100m 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,” Hille reports.

“In March 2005, Luxpro created a stir at the CeBIT technology show in Germany when it presented an MP3 player that looked similar to the iPod Shuffle,” Hille reports. “…In July 2005 Apple asked the Shihlin District Court in Taipei for an injunction that would ban Luxpro from manufacturing or selling the product. The injunction was granted a month later.”

“Luxpro appealed and won subsequent lawsuits in the Taiwan High Court and the Taiwan Supreme Court,” Hille reports. “Luxpro estimates that it has lost revenues of about $100m because of the temporary ban on manufacturing and selling the Tangent.”

Full article here.

AppleInsider has a full copy of Luxpro’s press release, “David vs. Goliath: Apple Computer Inc. Loses Lawsuit, Luxpro Technology Files US$100 Million Compensation Claim” here.

Related articles:
Luxpro alters iPod shuffle look-alike music player, renames it ‘Super Tangent’ – March 31, 2005
Report: Luxpro ‘Super shuffle’ knock-off of Apple iPod shuffle a publicity stunt – March 21, 2005
iPod shuffle rip-off maker Luxpro’s Chairman: patents do not cover appearance – March 15, 2005
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

37 Comments

  1. BRIBERY!

    Apple does manufacture a lot of there products in Taiwan. 2 Macs, both were shipped from Taiwan. They wouldn’t pull out. Where else are they going to find cheap labor with a infrasture and tech base that can handle Apple’s needs. They’ll settle out of court. Apple’s lawyers know that if they let it go to court and lose they set another dangerous precedent. However, if Luxpro or any other Taiwanese manufacturer attempts to distribute outside of Taiwan, I think they’d be screwed.

  2. “What kind of country is that? I’ll think of this the next time a tsunami hits them and they beg for help”

    Certainly by punishing the same people that are making 30 cents a day making that cheap ass knock off is the way to get back at ’em.

  3. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”mad” style=”border:0;” /> Obviously the taiwanese courts are bias towards there own companies. They wouldn’t have stood a chance in a real fair court system in the United States. This is such an outrage that some company can clone a product and call it there own and actually get away with it.

  4. They should sue the court system for granting the injunction, not Apple. Obviously, if the courts granted an injunction, they agreed that there was a strong enough case.

    As for the $100 million they’re asking for, at probably $25-50 US per shuffle rip-off, I highly doubt they would have sold 2-4 million of those things in the amount of time the injunction was in place…

  5. Is it just me or has a lot of legal arrows been slung in Apple’s way recently? (It all started with William Tell! ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> ) Is suing Apple the only way some companies and law firms know how to make money??? Sad really. Luxpro is using this tactic to grab some “easy cash”. They figured it worked for Creative (also a cool $100 mil), so why not give it a try. This will either be settled in Apple’s favor by the higher courts or will end up in front of the WTO.

    Peace.

Reader Feedback

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