Luxpro finally countersues Apple over the Super Tangent iPod shuffle clone

Hey, remember the Luxpro Super Shuffle / Super Tangent? That Taiwanese KIRF of the original iPod shuffle? Back in 2005 it ruffled some feathers in Cupertino with an appearance at CeBIT, went under a slight redesign, and was eventually brought to court by Apple's lawyers, prompting Luxpro to vow vengeance -- and nearly two years later, it's finally filed that promised countersuit against Apple. The suit alleges that Apple uses unfair tactics to squash competitors as part of its "unending aspiration" to maintain a monopoly in the PMP game, and throws in a dash of that never-works iTunes-tying argument for good measure. Luxpro also says the Super Tangent was "obviously" different than the original iPod shuffle (uh, sure) and that Apple was just being a bully when it tried to get the Super Shuffle removed from trade shows and importer lists. We'll see how this one plays out -- we've got a feeling it'll end pretty quickly.

[Thanks, Mark]

[Zelatio @ Oct 17th 2008 1:28PM]

Sorry but I have to side with Apple on this one...

[oZone @ Oct 17th 2008 2:00PM]

Word, "obviously" different my anal cavity. This is a blatant rip-off. Apple does use certain tactics I wouldn't agree with, however.

[zoopthegame @ Oct 17th 2008 5:28PM]

Total ripoff. Apple invented circles.

[macserv @ Oct 17th 2008 11:37PM]

It's not a matter of being on a particular side. The bottom line is that if anything even comes close to infringing upon Apple's protected intellectual property, they have no choice whatsoever... they have to act immediately, and with full force, regardless of the situation. There can be no exceptions to this policy whatsoever.

The reason for this is that the one time Apple does let the tiniest thing slide, that's precedent. Someone could now copy an Apple design, and get away with it by pointing to the instance where someone else was allowed to slip through the cracks. It's nothing nefarious, it's basic copyright law.

Equally basic is the reason why Apple's protection of their property seems to be particularly vigorous and frequent: they simply have more designs than anyone else which hardware manufacturers want to copy. Today, if you want to make a PMP that sells, and you don't have the resources or the desire to invent your own basic design, whose would you mimic? Microsoft knew the answer to that question when they created the basic appearance of the Zune, making it sufficiently different to avoid Apple's attention.

Eventually, someone will hit upon the next big, original design... it might be Apple, it might not. All the more reason to give props to iRiver for the Spinn. It's not the most intuitive interface I've ever used, but it is clean, usable, and different.

[Rocketboy @ Oct 18th 2008 10:43AM]

macserv.. and you know that because you're a laywer who deals with IP/Copyright law, or did you just pull it out of your arse, due to the other blog posts that you've read that say what you just said?

[Salsa Shark @ Oct 18th 2008 9:41PM]

There is no concept or precedent of "use it or lose it" when it comes to copyright law. Any competent lawyer knows that.

You're thinking of a common misunderstanding that's applied to trademarks.

[Generic @ Oct 20th 2008 4:06AM]

...but there isn't much design in the iPod shuffle. Its a USB stick with music controls similar to the ones found on many HiFi systems and mobile phones. Its like X sued by Y because Y thinks X copied their USB stick. LAME!

[Skyride @ Oct 17th 2008 1:32PM]

As much as I am a skeptic of apple, I have to side with them here. If only to show all these stupid companies that making ipod clones is the quickest route to bankrupcy town. The actual ipods are good products (everything else about them is the issue) but these rip offs are terrible and annoying.

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Oct 17th 2008 5:34PM]

Good point. The iPods do what they're advertised to do, and are a great product for it.

There are plenty of features (radio tuner, for one) people would like to see added, or codecs supported (ogg, wm, whatever), so there is a huge market for alternative players.

Unfortunately, the ripoffs (poorly) ape the design and usually have crap functionality, too.

Quality PMPs don't try to rip off design to confuse people, they sell on the merits of their own features and appearance.

[Davin Peterson @ Oct 17th 2008 1:34PM]

Apple unfairly dominates the market. Creative invented the iPod inferface, which Apple stole. Now, Creative doesn't get the recognition it deserves. It's ZEN players are better than the iPod. Apple has caused Creative to lose money and got Best Buy to stop carrying Creative's players. Creative had the first 32GB flash player before Apple.

[waiownsyou @ Oct 17th 2008 1:37PM]

You're as bad as these Engadget posters that camp to say, "FIRST!"

Just because Ford invented the first mass production automobile in the US means it's any better than the cars that are offered today from the likes of Toyota or Mercedes or even its own domestic competitor-- GM.

[JamesR @ Oct 17th 2008 1:45PM]

@waiownsyou

Actually Davin Peterson made an argument that was thought out and on point. Actually the complete opposite of the "FIRST!" spammers.

Also, with your last comment it is unclear where you stand. Are you supporting Luxpro's case or not? Though I have to agree with the sentiment that doing something first doesn't mean you're best at it. Look how long it took Apple to come around to Intel/nVidia to make a proper IBM clone ;). *duck*

[Drew @ Oct 17th 2008 2:02PM]

@JamesR

Actually, David's argument was only thought out to a certain extent. It basically reads like a gut reaction to any iPod post. It's "Canned Response #3: Apple stole from _company_X_ and _company_X_ got screwed. (optional modifier: Apple blows)"

My point is that the comment isn't at all relevant to the main topic.

Now, my 2 cents: Apple rip-offs lack insight, creativity, and value.

[Zak @ Oct 17th 2008 2:20PM]

David and JamesR, BS. If Apple truly stole Creative's interface, Creative should have been able to sue Apple and win. If they were not able to do that, then theft obviously isn't part of the equation. And seriously, if Creative were really good at PMPs, they would be outselling iPods. Isn't that obvious to you?

"Unfairly dominates the market" my ass. When the iPod came out it didn't dominate anything. It got to the top by being a good PMP, and by getting popular because it was good. You're bitter because Creative couldn't keep up, but that's not Apple's fault. Instead of blaming Apple, why don't you shift the blame to where it belongs - on Creative. Apple isn't preventing anybody from competing in the PMP space. Stop whining.

As far as this lawsuit goes, it's pretty ridiculous. They made a Shuffle clone and are now crying about it because it didn't sell as well as Apple's Shuffle. And they want to sue Apple? LAWL. Here's a hint you bottom feeding parasites: Make a product that doesn't suck, and people will buy it.

[Zorque @ Oct 17th 2008 2:23PM]

I don't like Apple's legal tactics much, but to be fair it's a pretty obvious interface, even if Creative did patent it first. And with Creative's history of totally fair prices on their hardware, and all those great drivers that work all the time, I'm not gonna cry for them if they're getting pushed around a little. Actually, they deserve to go out of business just for making Fatal1ty gear.

[jack @ Oct 17th 2008 3:55PM]

ok i have owned both creative and ipod the ipos masters in comaprrison all the buttons work the menuse are easy to use it aucutually has accepatble speed the itunes software dominates any other media player and support is great on ipod
but to address what u said about stealing the interface no they didnt apple had the first click wheel on this kind of device so just shut up

but the mas osx sucks balls

[Cal @ Oct 17th 2008 2:59PM]

"And seriously, if Creative were really good at PMPs, they would be outselling iPods. Isn't that obvious to you?"

Creative do make quality PMPs, but your average consumer doesn't really care about quality or features, they just buy the one which has been marketed a lot better and deeply embedded into society.

As for the stealing of the Creative filing system - http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/23/apple-and-creative-settle-apple-forks-out-100m/

[uwaga dude @ Oct 17th 2008 3:04PM]

the Zune is better than Creative and Apple put together.
both of you stfu

[Zak @ Oct 17th 2008 3:53PM]

Cal - "your average consumer doesn't really care about quality or features, they just buy the one which has been marketed a lot better and deeply embedded into society."

Which explains why Windows has a higher market share than the Mac OS does. Regardless, Creative had their chance. Apple had nothing at all, zero market share, when the iPod was introduced. All Creative had to do was keep it that way. Obviously they weren't able to do that. That isn't Apple's fault, that is Creative's fault. Stop making excuses for their failure to keep up.

As far as the lawsuit with Creative, that had to do with hierarchical menus, not the entire interface. Also, the real distinguishing feature on the iPod was its physical interface, the click wheel. That had nothing to do with Creative. Obviously the iPod's interface is better, because if it weren't then Creative PMPs would be more popular. Try to remember that the iPod had no clout or share in the PMP market at all when the iPod was introduced. It became popular from absolutely zero market share and it didn't prevent anybody else from competing on the same level. Any failure on Creative's part to gain market share is exactly that - a failure on Creative's part.

[Michael @ Oct 17th 2008 5:34PM]

Yes, because Creative has never done anything questionable: http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14467

Apple could stand to be a bit more open with their business model. I don't think they're going to get the market dominance they want (if they want it) by keeping everything closed and away from developer's hands. And they might want to pick up the pace pretty soon, because no doubt somebody's working on a way to port android to the iPhone. Who knows what will become of that, but I'm hoping nothing but good things.

[TD @ Oct 17th 2008 5:36PM]

@ Zak

'And seriously, if Creative were really good at PMPs, they would be outselling iPods. Isn't that obvious to you?'

Ah finally, you admit Windows is a better Operating System.


'Obviously the iPod's interface is better, because if it weren't then Creative PMPs would be more popular.'

Ah finally, you admit Windows has a better user interface!

-----

Don't be a fool.

[zoopthegame @ Oct 17th 2008 5:37PM]

@zak


Totally. Windows has a higher market share because consumers are into Marketing and not Quality.

Dell and HP and Lenovo and Sony and Toshiba all refuse to sell OS X, even though Apple encourages it. Why? Because consumers hate quality. That's why Windows has a higher market share. Sure.

[zoopthegame @ Oct 17th 2008 5:41PM]

@zak:

zak said: "If Apple truly stole Creative's interface, Creative should have been able to sue Apple and win."

Yes, the law is perfectly objective and correct 100% of the time.

If O.J. was truly guilty, he would have been convicted by the jury.

Judges are completely objective and never make mistakes because they have a robotic A.I. brain enhancement, and cannot be swayed by anything, not even money. Robots have no use for money.

[zoopthegame @ Oct 17th 2008 5:46PM]

@zak:

zak said: "If Apple truly stole Creative's interface, Creative should have been able to sue Apple and win."


Even if Apple had a Million Dollar Lawyer, and Creative had some Dude from a random Firm... The law never errs.

And Creative, with their budget, if they had a good product, should have just made a hundred million mp3 players and marketed it all over the world. If they simply did that, then they would have beaten Apple,

[tarZen @ Oct 17th 2008 10:24PM]

Invented the interface? The whole layered menu thing seems painfully obvious to me. To me that patent is one of those "me-first" things.

[macserv @ Oct 17th 2008 11:59PM]

Creative did not invent the iPod interface. I can't believe how many people here were willing to subscribe to that noion without doing the slightest bit of research. Here are the facts.

The original iPod user interface was created by a company called Pixo, which was founded by a former Apple employee. The Pixo OS was not limited to Apple devices, but Creative had nothing to do with its invention.

Apple bought the Pixo OS right after they shipped the original iPod, and Sun bought the rest of the company. The Pixo OS has evolved within Apple, and is supposedly still used in their current products.

[BuddyBoy @ Oct 18th 2008 6:57AM]

@zoopthegame

"Dell and HP and Lenovo and Sony and Toshiba all refuse to sell OS X, even though Apple encourages it. Why? Because consumers hate quality"

WTF?

[Bob @ Oct 17th 2008 1:59PM]

No Blu-Ray, no buy.

[Bastard @ Oct 17th 2008 2:15PM]

LAST!

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 17th 2008 2:12PM]

So its safe to say the car you bought came with Blu-Ray built-in?

[wootman @ Oct 17th 2008 2:21PM]

Yeah, i hate standard DVD mp3 players.
Glad they left the screen of though.

[benmully @ Oct 17th 2008 1:57PM]

Ummm it looks the same, interface the same, name almost identical!! I think they gonna lose.....

[Graham @ Oct 17th 2008 3:36PM]

Even the GUI is the same!!

...oh right.

[Bob @ Oct 17th 2008 2:16PM]

OMG uv course it did. Why would I buy a car that DIDN'T have such a necessary technology in it? Same with my oven, toothbrush, and sound system.

[Bad Beaver @ Oct 17th 2008 2:24PM]

Fast to copy - slow to sue. I smell a song in there.

[Bosco @ Oct 17th 2008 2:58PM]

Dude, I think you misspelled SUXPRO.

[lanejasper69 @ Oct 17th 2008 3:36PM]

I agree with Apple, and you can't stop em LOLOLOL

[T.H. @ Oct 17th 2008 3:46PM]

I'm sorry but Creative "inventing" the interface used in iPods and other portable devices is a load of bull. The interface elements listed and used by Creative were actually already being used on PC computers. The fact that it was used on a friggin mobile device should have put it into the obvious category. However, we all know how good the patent offices are at spotting obviousness. That is not to say I do not believe Apple wouldn't have been as hamfisted (probably more so) than Creative at hammering the competition with the MP3 UI patent.

The Zen players being better than iPods is a matter of taste. Personally, I wasn't exactly enamored when I tried one out. I think iRiver makes better players than Creative. As far as Best Buy dropping Creative, maybe it's because Joe Consumer wants an iPod. Even when they buy another brand MP3 player, they still call it an iPod. It's like calling portable cassette players "Walkmans" even when it isn't an actual walkman.

Either way, Luxpro is full of crap. They are a knockoff company. Any visual inspection of their products can tell you that.

[adrian @ Oct 17th 2008 3:59PM]

If Creative had got their arse in gear and produced a decent product they would be on top now.

[Juxterium @ Oct 18th 2008 8:15AM]

I guess that's why Apples market share in the Personal computer market is below Microsoft's right?

[RobinWilliamsHasPubesOnHisKnuckles @ Oct 17th 2008 5:01PM]

Well... I understand where Apple is coming from... but doesn't it boil down to the simple question of: Would an unknowing consumer mistake it for an iPod? Isn't that the main issue? If Luxpro called it an iPod and duped people into thinking it is an iPod, then I say go to court. But really... is Apple going to really suffer due to cheap knock-offs? First, if you're the kind of person who wants a knock-off, you weren't going to buy that Apple iPod in the first place. It's like buying knock-offs in NYC... you and I and everyone knows it's NOT a real Movado or Polo and that's why they can sell it.
2nd, Apple should welcome these crappy knock-offs w/ open arms. Why? 1. The 'gateway drug' myth... hey, you got this knock off,. you like it, but now you realize it's limitations or the damn thing broke, so time to upgrade to the real deal and 2. Knock offs always prove how much better the original is.
As far as being the best... iPods are where they at are for a reason.. I've gone through 2 already...they are the benchmark for a successful PMP. I'm a Zune convert now though... the 'classic' form for the iPod is just getting old and stale (yes, yes, iPod touch pwns, but a person like me not interested in Touch. Not until they come out with at least a 60GB touch). So I wanted a new player with at least 60GB, my choices were iPod or Zune. Look at the tiny Classic iPod screen compared to the 80GB Zune's. After messing around w/ my friend's Zune and realizing that it's a lot nicer than people think. People are down on Zune simply because it's not an iPod.

[Chris Are @ Oct 17th 2008 6:36PM]

This is almost as a good as that douche bag suing MS for the RRoD. Or almost as good as that company who tried to sue Nintendo for... having the same name? I forget.

I hate leeches.

[dr_jewish @ Oct 17th 2008 8:48PM]

As for creative, they haven't released anything compelling since the Zen Vision M. They spend their time releasing a million different versions of their same bargain players (arent there like 3 or 4 variations of the zen stone? jesus), and rehashing their zen as the zen x-fi, with the same size screen, adding wifi without a browser. I love my Vision M, but Creative has not released anything worthy of replacing their old players.

[tarZen @ Oct 17th 2008 10:33PM]

luxpro is a joke. They sue Apple for bully tactics when their business is based on aping other companies' products.

[K-Canuck @ Oct 17th 2008 11:22PM]

Funny. I actually bought one of these. Actually it was a clone of a clone :D

Enter the Centrios (aka RadioShack) 512MB USB Stick. Aka Luxpro Top Tangent... aka Shuffle knockoff. They took the shuffle and added what it didn't have. FM tuner, recorder, other codec support, OLED screen. Of course, they also added "just different enough" ugly buttons, and measly battery life. It did the trick while it lasted, then I gave it to a friend.

You can tell, though, that they were banking on the popularity of the Apple product, which puts Apple in the right. Luxpro didn't copy the concept, they copied the design, which is what people see when they walk into the store.

And no, I didn't buy it because it looked like the shuffle. At the time, it was the smallest USB player with that functionality (however flawed it may have turned out to be).

[Haikibutsu @ Oct 18th 2008 2:31PM]

You would be crazy to deny that isn't a ripoff

[cidman2001 @ Oct 18th 2008 5:59PM]

Ok, I have to say I'm one of the last people who still doesn't own an mp3 player. So, most of this goes into the who cares category. Judging solely on the picture and not the functionality, I'd have to say the buttons look slightly different, their logo is prominently displayed in big letters on the front of the unit and from the picture,it looks to be a bit longer than the shuffle.

It raises the question...Does Apple have an exclusive right to rectangular shaped music devices anymore than they don't have the exclusive rights to the shape of an apple?