Luxpro seeks $100m in damages from Apple over iPod shuffle knockoff
Luxpro Technology, a digital media player manufacturer which successfully defended a lawsuit from Apple Computer over an imitation iPod shuffle, said Wednesday it now plans to countersue the iPod maker for $100 million in damages.
In March of 2005, the Taiwanese company created quite the ruckus when it began showing off a near carbon copy of Apple's first-generation iPod shuffle during the CeBIT technology show.
Luxpro originally called the player the "Super Shuffle" but upon making the device available for sale changed the name to "Super Tanget." Nevertheless, it was nearly identical to Apple's original flash-based player in size, shape, color and weight.
The abridged version of the ensuing story is that Apple filed suit four months later in a Shihlin District Court. The court ruled in Apple's favor, granting an injunction that barred Luxpro from selling the iPod knockoff.
Luxpro then appealed to a Taiwan High Court which reversed the decision. The tennis match ensued, with Apple filing its own appeal to the Taiwan Supreme Court. Apple lost that round as well, and the original inunction was eventually lifted.
"Taiwan has a very sophisticated electronics technology, and we can't just let a multinational corporation take advantage of its market force to put down Taiwan's industry at its will," said Luxpro Chairman Wu Fu-Ching.
The Taiwanese company now says it plans to file a $100 million compensation suit, which seeks damages from Apple's "continued and illegitimate provisional disposition motion" that prevent sale of its products over the last 18 months.
A full copy of Luxpro's press release on the matter -- title "David vs. Goliath: Apple Computer Inc. Loses Lawsuit, Luxpro Technology Files US$100 Million Compensation Claim" -- can be seen in its entirety, below.
In March of 2005, the Taiwanese company created quite the ruckus when it began showing off a near carbon copy of Apple's first-generation iPod shuffle during the CeBIT technology show.
Luxpro originally called the player the "Super Shuffle" but upon making the device available for sale changed the name to "Super Tanget." Nevertheless, it was nearly identical to Apple's original flash-based player in size, shape, color and weight.
The abridged version of the ensuing story is that Apple filed suit four months later in a Shihlin District Court. The court ruled in Apple's favor, granting an injunction that barred Luxpro from selling the iPod knockoff.
Luxpro then appealed to a Taiwan High Court which reversed the decision. The tennis match ensued, with Apple filing its own appeal to the Taiwan Supreme Court. Apple lost that round as well, and the original inunction was eventually lifted.
"Taiwan has a very sophisticated electronics technology, and we can't just let a multinational corporation take advantage of its market force to put down Taiwan's industry at its will," said Luxpro Chairman Wu Fu-Ching.
The Taiwanese company now says it plans to file a $100 million compensation suit, which seeks damages from Apple's "continued and illegitimate provisional disposition motion" that prevent sale of its products over the last 18 months.
A full copy of Luxpro's press release on the matter -- title "David vs. Goliath: Apple Computer Inc. Loses Lawsuit, Luxpro Technology Files US$100 Million Compensation Claim" -- can be seen in its entirety, below.
Comments
So Taiwan is able to just ignore copyrights? If I were Apple I'd pull everything out of that country.
Yeah this damn illegitimate, break-away, province of China gets a lot of support from the West and this is the way their government responds.
Ignore international trademarks and copyrights. Maybe they will get in line when the mainland takes them back over.
So Taiwan is able to just ignore copyrights? If I were Apple I'd pull everything out of that country.
I second that.
No holding back.
nah i wouldn't pull apples business out of taiwan, that wouldn't hurt luxpro. What they should do is make sure luxpro is barred from selling it in western countries, hurting taiwans and luxpro's export sales!
if they don't wanna play nice cut them off.
What the hell?
Those were my EXACT first thoughts.
If you visit Taiwanese discussion forums, you'll see plenty of iPod fans disgusted over this entire deal.
Plus, just because Luxpro countersues, doesn't mean it'll win.
And Spammy, I would have expected better from you. We, the good denizens of the web do NOT bury those with whom we disagree... We subscribe them to 800 porn listserves and we call it a day. >;-D
<launches a catapult full of needles at SpamSandwich, while wheedling in the background>
So you guys automatically assume the all-mighty Luxpro represents the entire population of Taiwan and its disregard for intellectual property? Give me a break.
If you visit Taiwanese discussion forums, you'll see plenty of iPod fans disgusted over this entire deal.
Plus, just because Luxpro countersues, doesn't mean it'll win.
No, we are assuming that the ruling in favor of Luxpro was such a blatant injustice that the the Taiwanese government must be excessively corrupt. No matter how the pure the hearts of it's populace, a company can only function as well as the law allows it to.
So you guys automatically assume the all-mighty Luxpro represents the entire population of Taiwan and its disregard for intellectual property? Give me a break.
If you visit Taiwanese discussion forums, you'll see plenty of iPod fans disgusted over this entire deal.
Plus, just because Luxpro countersues, doesn't mean it'll win.
And the counter-suit aught to be filed in Cupertino. And can't you file a counter suit at the same time as you are recieving a counter-suit? Any lawyers in the house?
TMH
And let's please be more judicious in our slinging of words such as "patent" and 'copywrite'.
The correct term is copyright, though I was surprised to see that your term has gained some status of validity when referring to written works.
The correct term is copyright, though I was surprised to see that your term has gained some status of validity when referring to written works.
Oops! You're 100% correct on that. The "right to copy". My bad.
TMH
EDIT
Oh yes, and note my inconsistent use of single and double quotes. But that's from the madness, so we'll leave them alone.
absorootrey frivorus!
hmmm... now here we are presented with a very trickey statement. Clearly, this is making fun of Asian dificulties in separating 'L' and 'R' in spoken English.... my first impulse is to take it as a racist comment, but damn if I'm not guilty of the same thing every time I get one of the Japanese transfer students in my Japanese class to try to say "Squirel". Am I a bastard, or is context a valid consideration?
What does the Peanut Gallery say?
TMH