good point - no super for me thxbluebomberman said:the FM tuner (which will be pretty damn hard to use without a display)
Wow, Apple legal is fast.dombi said:Is their website down, or "someone" closed it...
http://www.luxpro-corp.com/e_575d.htm
tpatricks said:I checked with Apple Store folks and they said they sell audio recorders and FM receivers for the iPods but not even 100 to 1. Steve is sure disciplined these days (applause).-
Seems to be working fine for me. I think they might be doing some selective filtering, perhaps to prevent Apple Legal from having a peek?dombi said:Is their website down, or "someone" closed it...
http://www.luxpro-corp.com/e_575d.htm
My thoughts exactly. There's always someone who can sell something cheaper. This doesn't mean it's just as good.nickfit said:To those who say that this sends a message that Apple should be selling it cheaper, did you think about quality, not to mention research and development. This company reverse engineered the shuffle, and there is no guarentee that they are concerned with quality. But of course, they will likely be paying a hefty legal fee, and will have wasted all the money they did spend on reverse engineering and initial advertising.
RHutch said:It's easy to offer "more for less" when you don't have to spend money on R&D or hire an advertising firm to design an ad campaign. Apple designed the product and paid for an ad campaign; that's why it costs more for Apple to sell the product than it might cost of LuxPro to sell their ripoff with more features.
Protectable trade dress is infringed when a "likelihood of confusion" exists between defendant's trade dress and plaintiff's trade dress. The similarity between trade dress is gauged by the "ordinary buyer" standard. Would "unthinking" buyers believe both products came from the same source? If the same overall impression leads the ordinary buyer to that conclusion, infringement probably exists.
Among the factors a court will weigh to determine likelihood of confusion are:
The strength or distinctiveness of the trade dress
The intent to copy and "cash in" on plaintiff's reputation and goodwill
The similarity in products
Evidence of actual confusion
Degree of care exercised by buyers
The area, manner and degree of concurrent use.