Apple sues one 'knock-off' maker, defends against another
Apple has sued a third-party MacBook power adapter manufacturer and alleged it has violated patented designs, and also, in a separate trial, appealed to move its ongoing defense against clone iPod maker Luxpro to a California court.
The suit against Media Solutions Holdings, filed Monday in a federal district court in California, also names as defendants eRepalcements and Laptops For Less. It states that both Media Solutions and eRepalcements use the brand Laptops For Less to offer goods and services, through which they provide a power adapter for Apple's MacBook that is claimed to infringe on Apple's patents.
"Through various websites and otherwise, the Defendants market these knock-off power adapters for use with Apple portable computers, such as the MacBook. The Defendants' infringing conduct has damaged Apple and inflicted irreparable harm."
U.S. Patent No. D478,310, entitled "Power Adapter," was issued on Aug. 12, 2003. It covers an ornamental design for a power adapter. The suit includes photos of the 45-watt power adapter from Media Solutions, and compares them to the design shown in Apple's patent. The adapter in question, the suit says, "is substantially the same as Apple's patented design."
Another image shows the official Apple power adapter and the third-party product side-by-side. Both look identical, with the exception being the third-party product does not include the Apple logo.
Apple has requested that the court award damages to Apple in compensation for the alleged patent infringement, and place an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from continuing the sale of such products. It requests a trial by jury.
In the last week, Apple also made a new filing in its ongoing dispute with knock-off iPod and accessory maker Luxpro. The company defended itself successfully against Apple years ago, and returned fire by seeking $100 million in damages from Apple over a product similar to an iPod shuffle.
The most recent filing requests that the court vacate a Sept. 28, 2009, decision that denied Apple's motion to transfer the case from Arkansas to California. Apple believes the move is fair because the defendant does not reside in the western district of Arkansas and has no connections to it.
"The northern district of California has a substantial connection to the dispute and is more convenient for both parties and for a substantial number of nonparty witnesses," the request reads. "The denial of Apple's transfer motion was a clear abuse of discretion."
The Luxpro suit was filed in Texarkana, Ark., in October of 2008. It accuses Apple of trying to unlawfully interfere with Luxpro's business and attempting to hold a monopoly over the world media player market.
The suit against Media Solutions Holdings, filed Monday in a federal district court in California, also names as defendants eRepalcements and Laptops For Less. It states that both Media Solutions and eRepalcements use the brand Laptops For Less to offer goods and services, through which they provide a power adapter for Apple's MacBook that is claimed to infringe on Apple's patents.
"Through various websites and otherwise, the Defendants market these knock-off power adapters for use with Apple portable computers, such as the MacBook. The Defendants' infringing conduct has damaged Apple and inflicted irreparable harm."
U.S. Patent No. D478,310, entitled "Power Adapter," was issued on Aug. 12, 2003. It covers an ornamental design for a power adapter. The suit includes photos of the 45-watt power adapter from Media Solutions, and compares them to the design shown in Apple's patent. The adapter in question, the suit says, "is substantially the same as Apple's patented design."
Another image shows the official Apple power adapter and the third-party product side-by-side. Both look identical, with the exception being the third-party product does not include the Apple logo.
Apple has requested that the court award damages to Apple in compensation for the alleged patent infringement, and place an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from continuing the sale of such products. It requests a trial by jury.
In the last week, Apple also made a new filing in its ongoing dispute with knock-off iPod and accessory maker Luxpro. The company defended itself successfully against Apple years ago, and returned fire by seeking $100 million in damages from Apple over a product similar to an iPod shuffle.
The most recent filing requests that the court vacate a Sept. 28, 2009, decision that denied Apple's motion to transfer the case from Arkansas to California. Apple believes the move is fair because the defendant does not reside in the western district of Arkansas and has no connections to it.
"The northern district of California has a substantial connection to the dispute and is more convenient for both parties and for a substantial number of nonparty witnesses," the request reads. "The denial of Apple's transfer motion was a clear abuse of discretion."
The Luxpro suit was filed in Texarkana, Ark., in October of 2008. It accuses Apple of trying to unlawfully interfere with Luxpro's business and attempting to hold a monopoly over the world media player market.
Comments
Wow! A patent suit NOT filed in Tyler, Texas!
The whole patent system is antiquated, burdensome, and needs to change.
well... just look at the price of comparable products sold in China, where they don't have copyrights, trademarks, patents or class action lawsuits.
I wonder how much cheaper our products would be if the cost of copyright, trademark and patent, and class action lawsuit costs were not factored into the cost of the products.
China would be the model of what you're talking about. Counterfeiting is technically illegal, but a very common and accepted practice.
well... just look at the price of comparable products sold in China, where they don't have copyrights, trademarks, patents or class action lawsuits.
I don?t think I?ve ever sen a comparable product sold in China. I?ve seen knock offs, but nothing that is comparable in component and build quality.
I don?t think I?ve ever sen a comparable product sold in China. I?ve seen knock offs, but nothing that is comparable in component and build quality.
I would tend to agree.
Just returned after a week and a half in Beijing.
Lots of 1 TB USB keys that don't work.
Same for iPhones. Real bad. They don't work either.
I wonder how much cheaper our products would be if the cost of copyright, trademark and patent, and class action lawsuit costs were not factored into the cost of the products.
Well Apple's wouldn't be.
Ever hear of insurance?
Well Apple's wouldn't be.
Ever hear of insurance?
I think IP insurance on Apple products would probably be twice as expensive as the operating costs of their entire legal department.
Apple is like any of these high fashion makers like Gucci etc., they are always fighting the cloners and copycats.
Perhaps why PC makers make such crap, nobody wants to copy crap.
I can't believe this! Just another money grabbing lawsuit filed to milk Apple of it's prof?.
Wait. You mean Apple is suing?
hmmm. Oh I guess those do look pretty darn similar.
"I pledge allegiance to Ap?"
Apple is being sued for trying to hold a monopoly on the world's media player market... because it's trying to knock off one small company... and there are other, larger companies that aren't being sued by Apple.
The "other larger" companies were not making a media player that looks exactly like the iPod shuffle. Luxpro's defense was to use the method of distraction - fighting back by claiming a monopoly situation (which does not exist).
Apple has a huge portion of the market, sure, but nowhere near 95%, and there are no situations [to our knowledge] where partners & dealers are being illegally influenced to bundle iPods.
Ahh, finally some real hardware cloners for Apple to fight over, not the OS stealing kind like Pystar.
Apple is like any of these high fashion makers like Gucci etc., they are always fighting the cloners and copycats.
Perhaps why PC makers make such crap, nobody wants to copy crap.
Such crap and that's why Bloomingdales the fashion retail trend leader in NYC is featuring them in their 2009 Holiday catalogue this year.
http://www1.bloomingdales.com/search...*&Keyword=acer
Such crap and that's why Bloomingdales the fashion retail trend leader in NYC is featuring them in their 2009 Holiday catalogue this year.
http://www1.bloomingdales.com/search...*&Keyword=acer
You gotta be having a laugh?
Apple is like any of these high fashion makers like Gucci etc., they are always fighting the cloners and copycats.
Well, not really. If some cheap, knock-off power supply destroys the motherboard of an Apple laptop, it's likely that the consumer will take the unit in for repair, lie about the use of the non-Apple power supply, and Apple will end up eating the cost.
Such crap and that's why Bloomingdales the fashion retail trend leader in NYC is featuring them in their 2009 Holiday catalogue this year.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "fashion" and engineering. Bloomingdale's is not know for its tech savvy or vast engineering talent pool. What's next? Choosing your fall fashions based on recommendations in Information Week and the Embedded Systems Journal?
Apple is being sued for trying to hold a monopoly on the world's media player market... because it's trying to knock off one small company... and there are other, larger companies that aren't being sued by Apple.
These (semi) sentences make sense not! What the heck are you trying to say?
China would be the model of what you're talking about. Counterfeiting is technically illegal, but a very common and accepted practice.
Which is why we have patent and copyright laws in the first place. Why would any company, let alone Apple, spend money on R&D knowing full well the fruits of their labor would be immediately copied by knock-off artists. China manufactures products developed by companies outside of China. China invents, innovates, designs, precisely NOTHING.
As for counterfeiting being a common and accepted practice? I'd like to see you try to use that argument with the Treasury agents when they come to get you for passing that counterfeit $50 bill at Costco. Same thing, by your definition, is it not?
As for counterfeiting being a common and accepted practice? I'd like to see you try to use that argument with the Treasury agents when they come to get you for passing that counterfeit $50 bill at Costco. Same thing, by your definition, is it not?
I was only reporting, not arguing in favor.
For those who celebrate - have a happy and satiating Thanksgiving. And may Black Friday empty you wallets and purses fulsomely.