Cisco Suing Apple For iPhone Trademark Infringement

[mi5moav]

I agree at the very least Cisco will loose the name due to all the public uptake. Of course they will be allowed to use the product name just like any company can call their product iPhone. They should have sued 4 years ago or at the very least when Apple got the the name Iphone.Org or when the Internet Phone Company got iphone.com. Cisco should have known better. But whats cooler is that Apple actually wanted this phone to work with Skype or VOIP so when you came home it would go off the Cingular network and ODOMADICALLY connect with the your Home or Biz VOIP network.

Also, Apples Xphone is like a cancer drug, they may say if you don't allow us the name we will not bring it to market. So, the future of telephony stops there with all the patents.

Pfizer, "So you won't let us name our drug that cures cancer "iPod" ok, well we won't bring it to market and everyone will die... thanks.

[RichP]

This was dumb on apples part.

The real end result though, is that people will always call this device "iPhone" just as they refer to most macs as "imac" Cisco has no worries, noone is going to buy that thing once more cellphones get built in VOiP.

[cgc]

Waddya wanna bet Cisco bought up the name in anticipation of a free payday from Apple (I know they acquired "iPhone" around 2000 from an acquisition). Kind of like people buying "walmart.com" then trying to sell it to the actual Wal-Mart.

[SpaceJello]

trademark law sue always have benefit, but i wouldn't call ppl low just because they sue the guy who invade their trademark.

Do we know when Cisco applied for the iPhone trademark? If it is after any buzz that Apple was going to make an "iPhone", wouldn't that be an opportunistic move? Like if I knew you were going to call a product or possible product "XYZ", I rush to trademark that name before you do... and make a similar product with that name.

Cisco has every right to protect its trademark, just that the bargaining tactics of trying to get in with Apple isn't necessarily just.

[Quboid]

This was dumb on apples part.
.

Thats some truth. I don't think calling it anythnig else would of made a difference anyways.

[clevin]

Waddya wanna bet Cisco bought up the name in anticipation of a free payday from Apple (I know they acquired "iPhone" around 2000 from an acquisition). Kind of like people buying "walmart.com" then trying to sell it to the actual Wal-Mart.

lol, remember Cisco get iPhone trademark in 2000, and the original company who own iPhone and bought buy Cisco has the trade mark since 19xx.

ur comparison should be like "some guy registered walmart.com 6 years before walmart company appear and then trying to sell it to the company"

[AppleIntelRock]

Do we know when Cisco applied for the iPhone trademark? If it is after any buzz that Apple was going to make an "iPhone", wouldn't that be an opportunistic move? Like if I knew you were going to call a product or possible product "XYZ", I rush to trademark that name before you do... and make a similar product with that name.

Cisco has every right to protect its trademark, just that the bargaining tactics of trying to get in with Apple isn't necessarily just.
.

Waddya wanna bet Cisco bought up the name in anticipation of a free payday from Apple (I know they acquired "iPhone" around 2000 from an acquisition). Kind of like people buying "walmart.com" then trying to sell it to the actual Wal-Mart.

[clevin]

Do we know when Cisco applied for the iPhone trademark? If it is after any buzz that Apple was going to make an "iPhone", wouldn't that be an opportunistic move? Like if I knew you were going to call a product or possible product "XYZ", I rush to trademark that name before you do... and make a similar product with that name.

Cisco has every right to protect its trademark, just that the bargaining tactics of trying to get in with Apple isn't necessarily just.

Cisco bought a company in 2000 called Infogear Technology, who owned "iPhone" since 1996. at that time, there wasn't iMac nor iPod

[Zadillo]

Waddya wanna bet Cisco bought up the name in anticipation of a free payday from Apple (I know they acquired "iPhone" around 2000 from an acquisition). Kind of like people buying "walmart.com" then trying to sell it to the actual Wal-Mart.

That's really kind of goofy, their acquisition of the iPhone name predated even the iPod....... there was little reason to expect Apple to release a product called iPhone.

Now, Cisco's decision to release an actual product with the name so recently is more curious (this is a name they have been sitting on, and it seems like they decided they finally needed to slap iPhone on the name of one of their products and get it released so they could have some basis for defending the trademark). Especially since we now now that Apple has been begging them to use the trademark for a while, it's not like Cisco couldn't put two and two together and figure it out.

[obeygiant]

why dont they change the name to macphone?
I thought they were dropping the "i" these days anyway.

[mi5moav]

JesusPhone

[obeygiant]

JesusPhone

mygodisanawesomegodphone?

this could go on for days.

[p0intblank]

Ahhh, just leave Apple alone! :(

[pilotzen]

its a big read http://www.centernetworks.com/ciscos-full-filed-complaint-claim-v-apple

:eek: :D

[barnaby]

Not the wisest of moves.

Has anyone considered the stupidity of just skipping the keynote this year when everything is focussed on this? Especially when apple is under heat about dirty stocks? Stockholders need to feel safe with their investment.

My guess is that cisco knew apple was desperate to announce this and was prolonging it to be able to get more money out of apple in the deal.

I say boo on cisco for trying to jump in on apple's namespace. iMac, iPod, iPhoto, iDVD, iWeb, iLife, iWork, iTunes.. It would have been different if cisco called it Microsoft Phone, because that would have been trademark infringement. You can't trademark part of a name.

That's business though. Steve's not the guy to get pushed around, and he's not the kind of guy not to have thought this through. Public opinion and reputation is now part of the equation. Before it was some judge that had the only say. Now cisco is gonna have to think what this'll do to their brand name.

[spoggle]

Infogear registered iPhone in '96 I believe and marketed a product through CIDCO as the "CIDCO iPhone"

http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/3118/Cidco_iPhone.html

Cisco acquired Infogear and supported iPhone purchasers for a couple of years.

Interestingly, InfoGear had several ex-Apple people (Ike Nassi of Copland fame, et al).

The BU that was InfoGear was shut down in the big Cisco layoffs.

One of the executives from InfoGear went on to head Linksys after their acquisition by Cisco.

[Zadillo]

why dont they change the name to macphone?
I thought they were dropping the "i" these days anyway.

For the same reason the iPod isn't called the MacPod. They don't want to give the impression it is limited to just Mac users.

[mazola]

iMobile

too close to 'immobile'

[mazola]

The iPood

[paratroopdoc]

Why not call it the iFone :)

[mi5moav]

Just call it the "I" and the phone will follow

[Konradx]

Cisco is NASTY for taking a name they for sure KNEW apple would use, just to make a buck, and scandel. why now cPHone? Apple should just trademark "i Insert Capital letter"

[bigmacdaddy]

I think Apple was smart to settle on the name, iPhone. It's what "everyone" dubbed this product that went unseen for many years. To use anything else would have been seen as "dumb". Jobs is no dummy.

However if they do have to change it, why not call it the iPhonePod?

[whatever]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070110/cisco_apple.html?.v=1

Who else knew this was coming?

Don't quote me on this, but....

I heard that Apple does not want the device to be branded as just a phone or even called iPhone, but there was so much market expectations on the "iPhone" that Apple ran with it to catch the press. They also plan to catch the press a second time in May (not june) when they officially launch the 6th Generation iPod (the device formally known as the iPhone).

Two additional configurations will be available - iPod 80GB and iPod 60GB with no phone, but all other features (this will also allow Apple to sell out their remaining inventory of Video iPods).

Again, please don't quote me or bash me (well go ahead and bash me), just wait and see.

[whatever]

The name iPhone is now overused and the phone is truly not just a phone. I would prefer MacMobile, MobileMac.

There is the Mac Mini, iMac (this should just be The Mac), and Mac Pro in the computer line, ... so why not make the phone line as follows - 4GB MacMobile Mini, 8GB MacMobile, and 80 GB hard Drive version, (I can dream) - MacMobile Pro.

Let Cisco have iPhone, People will buy whatever is branded with the Apple.

They can call it Phone an it will still sell.:)
Maybe we should have a naming contest.

How about calling it the Newton.
Or Accident, as in what it will cause when used in a car.

I hope my posts don't appear back to back, I feel like such a loser when that happens.

[photomaniac]

It almost sounds like Apple was strung along by Cisco. One day they're saying "we're very close to a deal", and the next day (the day right after the release) Cisco is saying "we changed our minds, you can't have it anymore."

Was this possibly a publicity stunt by cisco to get free advertising for their iPhone (because no doubt, this story will be all over the news).

I was kinda thinking the same thing

[mrkramer]

Cisco is NASTY for taking a name they for sure KNEW apple would use, just to make a buck, and scandel. why now cPHone? Apple should just trademark "i Insert Capital letter"

As has already been said here Cisco got the name in 2000, and it was registered in 1996 well before the iMac or iPod. Their timing of releasing their iPhone is suspicious since they didn't use it until they were pretty sure that Apple was going to want to use it.
I don't think that using i before a capital letter is able to be trademarked anyway.

[Rhema]

OK, so..i guess it'll be a lot to make apple change the name but seriously


It needs to not be called the iPhone...steve jobs said it himself, its only 1/3rd a phone, it needs a name that reflects that how about..


iMobile

Since the whole concept is a computer in your pocket, why not? its "You Mobile" get it? iMobile

I think it'd be a great name..anyone know how I could email steve jobs the suggestion?

[kresh]

First they didn't get the patent application in fast enough for the iPod UI, then they didn't secure the iPhone name from Cisco prior to the Keynote. I wonder if Steve was under the impression that it was settled.

hehe, the biggest question is where is Steve going to put the dead bodies at Apple Inc. I would be willing to bet he went APE ***** and the heads have rolled!

But much, much more likely: I really think that after watching the keynote again that iPhone is just a code word.

He plainly said "We are calling it the iPhone" (Just like they did for iTV). I bet dollars to doughnuts that they never intended to sell it under the iPhone name. Just use all the rumor-mongering and press that has gone on over the past year to point to the phone by calling it the iPhone. Then when they sell it, sell it as the Apple Phone.

[mcdermd]

Has anyone noticed that Apple's web pages specifically call this the "iPhone" ?

Can you trademark a symbol as part of a name? Like Prince did? :D

[mrkramer]

Has anyone noticed that all of Apple's web pages specifically call this the "?iPhone" ?

Can you trademark a symbol as part of a name? Like Prince did? :D

I noticed that I think that it may be what they will change the name to, or is that too close? I don't know a lot about law.

[1984]

Just call it phone and be done with it.

[balamw]

It's a shame our fellow Mac enthusiast DNA (http://www.douglasadams.com/) is no longer with us. The perfect name for the device would be ih2g2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2G2). Sell it with a towel and a "Don't Panic" wallpaper.

B

[Ha ze]

Just call it ?phone and be done with it.

how do you type the Apple symbol??

[kironin]

iPhown

iFown

iPhune

iPhun


Phhhhhhhhhhhu--c Cisco !

:mad:

Boycott Cisco!

[MrCrowbar]

He plainly said "We are calling it the iPhone" (Just like they did for iTV). I bet dollars to doughnuts that they never intended to sell it under the iPhone name. Just use all the rumor-mongering and press that has gone on over the past year to point to the phone by calling it the iPhone. Then when they sell it, sell it as the Apple Phone.

Well observed. He didn't say it's the codename for now, but he did not say it will sell as iPhone either. This lawsuit is making great press for Apple, lots of media coverage, everybody will know the iPhone by the time it's released. Add a nice TV ad at launch to let people know it's called phone, done.

[bigraz]

Maybe we should have a naming contest.

How about calling it the Newton.
Or Accident, as in what it will cause when used in a car.

I hope my posts don't appear back to back, I feel like such a loser when that happens.

What happened to the no iPhone and a new form factor iMac?

I was looking forward to that. This isn't too shabby though.

[AppleIntelRock]

iPhown

iFown

iPhune

iPhun


Phhhhhhhhhhhu--c Cisco !

:mad:

Boycott Cisco!


Um, why?
Cisco has had the rights to this name since 2000 (since the mid-90s really) and Steve goes a releases a product under this name without getting a complete OK from cisco first. Sounds a little narcissistic to me.I'd sue him if I were cisco.

[MrCrowbar]

how do you type the Apple symbol??

It's different depending on your keyboard. Open System Prefs, International, Input Menu and enable the keyboard viewer (3rd checkbox on top). A flag of your country should appear in the menu bar. Click on it, select "show keyboard viewer". Hold Apple and Shift and you should see the Apple logo on the virtual keyboard. Luicida Grande (default font) has the apple logo in it, i used Luicida Sans Unicode in the forum.

[balamw]

Well observed. He didn't say it's the codename for now, but he did not say it will sell as iPhone either.

It is also true that they are not technically offering it for sale until they get the FCC license, so Cisco may not have much of a leg to stand on.

B

[Ha ze]

Well observed. He didn't say it's the codename for now, but he did not say it will sell as iPhone either. This lawsuit is making great press for Apple, lots of media coverage, everybody will know the iPhone by the time it's released. Add a nice TV ad at launch to let people know it's called ?phone, done.

look, MrCrowbar, you did, the Apple trick... how?

i like it was the iPhone rumors... now the iPhone RENAME rumors, just kinda funny

but i really want to know the Apple sign trick


EDIT:: thank you 

[SeaFox]

What would be the legal implications, say if Cisco had the trademark and no product, then developed the product solely after Apple came to them?

Actually, I heard something like that is exactly what happened. Cisco rebranded an existing product because they feared their iPhone trademark would be invalidated since they weren't doing anything with it.

[phungy]



An apple a day keeps the dentist away...make that a dozen. :D

[SeaFox]

Who cares what it's called? I'm sick of i. What's wrong with Apple Phone? People will even know who the maker is then. It's not like it's an internet device anyway.

Yeah, it's not like being able to surf the web and send email on it is enough to qualify. :rolleyes:

[SeaFox]

iWiz
Its more than a phone its a Wiz at everything it does.
I hate to be crude, well not really, but that sounds like something you do in a bathroom. :p

But what about the people who go Wii? :D

[balamw]

But what about the people who go Wii? :D

Not to mention the ton of folks have been trying to unsuccessfully go Wii for the past month or so. :eek:

B

[SeaFox]

Apple could always rename the iPhone as the Cisco :D

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/cisco-kid.jpg

I'm sure that name is taken. :rolleyes:

But they could call it the Ciscom.
Then when Cisco complains they can just offer to trade trademarks.

[virus1]

ahaha.. so much for that! i always thought that name flat out SUCKED..

person 1: how do you summarize an ipod, a phone, and an internet communicater?

person 2: i know! how about iphone?

person 1: umm that is just a name for the phone.

person 2: well it worked for cisco, so it will work for us.

[SeaFox]

Cisco has a trademark for an internet VOIP solution...NOT a cellular phone! Apple has a trademark for a CELLULAR PHONE.

So what happens when people start running Skype on their iPhone?

[SeaFox]

Just call it the "I" and the phone will follow

It's funny. That would probably work.
"I want to buy an 'I' phone."

It does run applications. So they could call it the APPLiPhone

Get it? :D

[iMikeT]

Q: What's the best way to get free publicity for your tech company today?

A: Sue Apple, Inc.

[dextertangocci]

I somehow knew this was going to happen...

What's wrong with MacPhone. I like that name better than iPhone:)

[dornoforpyros]

hmm I always found it kinda odd that apple never trademarked the whole *i* thing. I mean they started it (too my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong) and they use it the most.

[pianojoe]

That's an easy one.

Cisco tried to postpone a settlement till after the keynote to gain some leverage. Apple had already prepared the prototypes and the demo slides, and wasn't willing to cancel the presentation. It was all a matter of days after all. However, if no settlement is reached, they'll naturally pick another name for the phone when it ships.

P.S. If you've wondered why the phone won't be coming to Europe before Christmas: They'll need to add GPRS/UMTS, or they won't stand a chance. EDGE isn't available in Europe.

[BlackLilyNinja]

That's an easy one.

Cisco tried to postpone a settlement till after the keynote to gain some leverage. Apple had already prepared the prototypes and the demo slides, and wasn't willing to cancel the presentation. It was all a matter of days after all. However, if no settlement is reached, they'll naturally pick another name for the phone when it ships.


imo
This move was totally planned by Cisco. These talks have had to be going on for quite sometime. In the keynote Steve pointed out that they patented 200 elements of the iPhone. He looked like he was under the impression it was a done deal. This is someone at Cisco giving Steve the finger. Planned well in advance to delay the deal long enough for apple to publicly announce the product.

[dalvin200]

Q: What's the best way to get free publicity for your tech company today?

A: Sue Apple, Inc.

that cuold also be a valid point iMike..

and reading my feeds this morning, Apple might be sued again with their iPhone similarity with an LG handset (http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/)!!!!!

the case continues :)

[bigfib]

But it aint one of these

But I know which one I want... and it aint one of these...

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/firstlook112.html

[apfelnutzer]

P.S. If you've wondered why the phone won't be coming to Europe before Christmas: They'll need to add GPRS/UMTS, or they won't stand a chance. EDGE isn't available in Europe.[/QUOTE]

UMTS is dead in Europe. Phone companies paid a fortune for the UMTS rights and nobody uses it because it is up to 10 times more expensive than using local area networks. Wonder if iphone comes with w-lan though.

[MacBram]

...I never liked the name iPhone, anyways...

:rolleyes:

I agree. The Mac/iMac isn't the "iComputer", and the iPod isn't the "iMP3Player", so why iPhone? They should either expand on the iPod or iMac name by saying iPod Pro or iPod Talk or whatever; or, come up with something completely different - but I don't know what. Like iPhod or something. Or maybe iNTouch to go with the new UI. But that is too contrived. "Mac" and "Pod" are nice and simple catchy words that don't mean much on their own; but they are now cultural icons here to stay. You would think there is some simple three letter word they could come up with. If they are reinventing the phone they could also reinvent the name.

[stowaway0]

Come ON! The boys at Cisco are a bunch of unoriginal plagarizing oportunistic crooks. Cisco needs to let this one go. Since the introduction of the first "iMac" and "iBook", "iWhatever" has been the creative property of Apple.

Unless it was a third party accessory to an Apple product, I can have no respect for anyone who names their product "i". Even though Cisco has held the copyright since 200?, it's a low blow and a sad way to try to get attention drawn to your product, whether you're intentionally timing the release or simply trying to capitolize on the success of an internationally recognized signature... "iPod", "iMac", "iTunes,iPhoto,iCal,iWork,iMovie,iLife etc..." we all know these things are Apple's iNvention.

Copyright or not, it's sad (pathetic) that out of the thousands of possible words, letters, numbers and symbols that could proceed "PHONE", the best thing Cisco could come up with was "i"

[emotion]

P.S. If you've wondered why the phone won't be coming to Europe before Christmas: They'll need to add GPRS/UMTS, or they won't stand a chance. EDGE isn't available in Europe.

Apparently Orange are suitably equipped. I take your point though. All the other carriers have gone with 3G


UMTS is dead in Europe. Phone companies paid a fortune for the UMTS rights and nobody uses it because it is up to 10 times more expensive than using local area networks.

No-one uses it...until now maybe. All the major networks are pushing it here in the UK. Have you evidence they are dropping 3G?

edit: i agree on the cost though (to the end user) no-one apart from t-mobile has anything even remotely resembling a sensible data plan (web'n'walk).

[apfelnutzer]

They'll need to add GPRS/UMTS, or they won't stand a chance. EDGE isn't available in Europe.[/QUOTE]

That's not true. EDGE is available in Europe. I think that more than one provider will offer the iphone in Europe.

[Mac Kiwi]

If Cisco and Apple both have trademarks for different countries other then the US this could get very messy.

[Hashton]

That's an easy one.

Cisco tried to postpone a settlement till after the keynote to gain some leverage. Apple had already prepared the prototypes and the demo slides, and wasn't willing to cancel the presentation. It was all a matter of days after all. However, if no settlement is reached, they'll naturally pick another name for the phone when it ships.

P.S. If you've wondered why the phone won't be coming to Europe before Christmas: They'll need to add GPRS/UMTS, or they won't stand a chance. EDGE isn't available in Europe.

Oh My God! you don't know what you talking about, Edge and 3G is available in Europe and several surrounding countries like for 2 years already...if not longer...

[bugfree]

iPeople...

Has anyone suggested this?

Apple should just invert the "i" and make it !Phone. Because people will still call it iPhone anyway, like... "Where did I put my iPhone?"

[apfelnutzer]

Apple should just invert the "i" and make it !Phone. Because people will still call it iPhone anyway, like... "Where did I put my iPhone?"[/QUOTE]

Very nice! I also like iCon(nect) or iCom(munication)

[SiliconAddict]

I hate to be crude, well not really, but that sounds like something you do in a bathroom. :p


Still phonetically the same.

Hmm maybe a bundle package?

iWiz + Wii :p :D

[eenu]

Looks like it's Asia and the UK first and the US to follow in 2008 when they've sorted the legal mess out over the US ownership then.

Never mind eh? :D :D

hehe yeah we can all enjoy our iPhones here.....our american friends can have their Apple Phones in 2007 or wait until 2020 for their iPhones :P

It is weird how iPhone is on apple.com but nothing is on apple.com/uk given apple can legally use the iphone name in the UK and we ship a matter of months after the states.

[eenu]

Oh My God! you don't know what you talking about, Edge and 3G is available in Europe and several surrounding countries like for 2 years already...if not longer...

Lol yeah he has no idea.....the communications industry and indeed mobile phone networks in the UK and Europe are far more advanced and ahead of the American ones.

Thats no fault of the americans, just mobile communications took off FAR quicker here than it did there and hence how we got ahead.

PS - Remember when i was living across there in 2005 for a bit and it was like going back in time when i got a mobile etc

[Stella]

Take off your apple glasses and open your eyes!!!!!

Your too much of an Apple fanatic to see the light.

Cisco had the trademark since 2000, it was registered in the mid 90s.

OMG... how dare Cisco use their own trademark!!!

Apple don't own anything the brand i<something>.

Still today there are companies who bring out products called i<something>.

So, take off your Apple glasses and see reality. iPhone is Cisco's trademark, and Apple used the name without agreement. Cisco have every right to use their own bloody trademarks!!

If your droning on about originality - AppleTV isn't exactly an original name - how long did that take to think up, 5 seconds?

Come ON! The boys at Cisco are a bunch of unoriginal plagarizing oportunistic crooks. Cisco needs to let this one go. Since the introduction of the first "iMac" and "iBook", "iWhatever" has been the creative property of Apple.

Unless it was a third party accessory to an Apple product, I can have no respect for anyone who names their product "i". Even though Cisco has held the copyright since 200?, it's a low blow and a sad way to try to get attention drawn to your product, whether you're intentionally timing the release or simply trying to capitolize on the success of an internationally recognized signature... "iPod", "iMac", "iTunes,iPhoto,iCal,iWork,iMovie,iLife etc..." we all know these things are Apple's iNvention.

Copyright or not, it's sad (pathetic) that out of the thousands of possible words, letters, numbers and symbols that could proceed "PHONE", the best thing Cisco could come up with was "i"

[davey-nb]

Cisco had the name waaaay before Apple was even thinking about iPhone - so how it is a cheap knockoff?!!!

Cisco have every right to use 'iPhone'.

It's not as black and white as you make out... consider this from the Macobserver:

I find it hard to believe that Apple would have backed away on a deal with Cisco unless they were pretty confident that they could prevail. I suspect that Cisco probably asked for too much money.
Therefore, although I’m not a lawyer, I did a little looking around and found the following:
From (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm)

“Moreover, non-use [of a trademark] for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment”
Seems to me that Cisco MUST lose this one.
Comment by Not a lawyer - January 11, 2007 at 5:07 am

[Mookamoo]

Just another small downward step from Apple as they continue to believe their own hype and think they can just do what they want.

Sounds like 1990's Microsoft to me.

[Stella]

Good link.

But how do you know Apple backed away?

Also, Cisco did use the iPhone name...
consider:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/smbiz/iphone/

Look at the copyright at the bottom of the page:
"All contents copyright &#169; 1992--2000 Cisco Systems, Inc. Important Notices and Privacy Statement."

(c) 2000!!!!

There was a product called iPhone, so iPhone has been used and always was being used.

The release of the Cisco iPhone wasn't the first product, it was a revision.

Additionally quote, more recently:
"Though the launch of its new line may be strategically timed, this is not Lynksys' first mention of an iPhone. The company has shipped seven phones from its iPhone line since the summer of 2004."
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/54773.html

It's not as black and white as you make out... consider this from the Macobserver:

I find it hard to believe that Apple would have backed away on a deal with Cisco unless they were pretty confident that they could prevail. I suspect that Cisco probably asked for too much money.
Therefore, although I’m not a lawyer, I did a little looking around and found the following:
From (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm)

“Moreover, non-use [of a trademark] for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment”
Seems to me that Cisco MUST lose this one.
Comment by Not a lawyer - January 11, 2007 at 5:07 am

[davey-nb]

Good link.

Look at the copyright at the bottom of the page:
"All contents copyright © 1992--2000 Cisco Systems, Inc. Important Notices and Privacy Statement."

(c) 2000!!!!

There was a product called iPhone, so iPhone has been used and always was being used.


One must defend the patent to maintain it.
Infogear held the patent for many years before being bought by Cisco and it appears they never tried to enforce it.
It is not enough for Cisco to decide to enforce it now.

[Rocketman]

Thats some truth. I don't think calling it anythnig else would of made a difference anyways.

I believe it was consumers, starting largely at rumour sites, that attached "iPhone" to a rumoured, and either not confirmed or outright denied, Apple product.

Consumer and media groundswell naming is hard to overcome.

Rocketman

[Stella]

Patent and Copyright are very different things.

You mean (c) copyright.


Cisco had nothing to defend against - a rumoured product from Apple that everyone referred to as 'iPhone'.

Cisco cannot tell everyone not to use the word 'iPhone' when referencing a rumour! LOL.
When I mean everyone - I mean the general public.

Cisco are now defending their copyright now there is a real ( public known )Apple product called iPhone.

Remember Rendezvous? Apple had to rename it to Bonjour despite using the Rendezvous name for a while. It was only after a period of time did the other company who had the trademark 'Rendezvous' enforce it. Apple were forced a name change.


One must defend the patent to maintain it.
Infogear held the patent for many years before being bought by Cisco and it appears they never tried to enforce it.
It is not enough for Cisco to decide to enforce it now.

[ro2nie]

What about using the name iFone?

[davey-nb]

Patent and Copyright are very different things.

You mean (c) copyright.

Cisco had nothing to defend against - a rumoured product from Apple that everyone referred to as 'iPhone'.

Cisco cannot tell everyone not to use the word 'iPhone' when referencing a rumour! LOL.


"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.
Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.

Infogear and Cisco had the resposibility to defend the patent for years.
This has nothing to do with copyright.

[davey-nb]

The Guardian: AAPL Will Keep Name
By Charles Arthur / Apple 09:47pm

The more we look into this, the more it becomes (as Malcolm Gladwell points out in an excellent New Yorker article) like a mystery, not a puzzle - that is, the answers were all out there already, but needed to be put together. (Gladwell's piece is about Enron. Highly recommended.)

Apple did indeed register the "iPhone" trademark in the US, and it was granted in September 2006. Don't believe us? See this page. Sure, it's down for "Ocean Telecom Services", but the description (not to mention the typography) are all that Apple gear. And as 10layers noted in October, Apple had been filing with the same description all over the world, including the UK.

Now, if you look at the results of a search in the US Patent and Trademark Office for "iPhone", you get 9 results, of which 6 have been abandoned. The only others, besides Apple, are for a hotel internal phone, and Cisco's, which arguably doesn't conflict with the Apple one - the trademark is in a different field, of "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks", not "handheld and mobile digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone calls, faxes, electronic mail, and other digital data..."

[Stella]

Its not a patent!!! Its trademark.

A patent is to protect an idea, a trademark is a name.

Its the name iPhone - its a trademark

Sorry, in my previous post I referred to copyright when I meant Trademark.


"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.
Several companies already use the name "iPhone" for Voice-over-Internet products, Kerris said.

Infogear and Cisco had the resposibility to defend the patent for years.
This has nothing to do with copyright.

[iN8]

I think Cisco's only claim is to the name "iPhone". If you read the patent here (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6757363&id=9TUSAAAAEBAJ&dq=iPhone) or here (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=&#37;2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6757363), you will see that Cisco's iPhone and Apples are totally different devices, at least from what I can gather from the patent speak.

Cisco's is intendeded to connect to a computer network and server, thus it is a network appliance.

Apple's on the other hand connects to a cellular network, thus it is a cellular phone. I think it is quite intentional that it doesn't (or at least isn't mentioned) sync or connect to a computer over a computer network to avoid getting into any gray areas. I know it can connect to the internet over wifi, but who doesn't.

[mi5moav]

Exactly!!

Just like the Newton was actually only the OS, though everyone called the physical product that, when infact is was realy the MessagePad with Newton OS.

So. this is the apple phone with iphone OS, but everyone will call it iPhone

[merman637]

I hope apple rips them a new one. I understand that Cisco has the trademark (on something that wasn't even on the market at the time, but seriously, are we supposed to take their iPhone seriously? I think they introduced it just so they would have grounds to sue apple.
Cisco has been putting out crappy products (just look at the wrt54gc fiasco) and even worse customer service for years now.
It's my hope they are dealt a loss and shrivle up and die somewhere in a corner...just my 2 cents.

Can you tell I've had bad experiences with Cisco?

[daysleeper]

I've always like "iPod Phone"... it capitalizes on an already established brand name.

"iCell", anyone?

iPhone just sounds.... smarmy. "Hey dude, I just bought an iphoneand I can use it as an iPod too!

Maybe it is time to retire the "i".

[daysleeper]

Check it:

"If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail." --Natalie Kerris, Apple spokeswoman

Article link: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/cisco-sues-apple-over-use/story.aspx?guid=%7B05D79CF8%2D7767%2D48E8%2D82BD%2D508F156055EE%7D

[davey-nb]

Its not a patent!!! Its trademark.

A patent is to protect an idea, a trademark is a name.

Its the name iPhone - its a trademark

Sorry, in my previous post I referred to copyright when I meant Trademark.

Yes but the failure to defend the Trademark againt the previous infringers negates its validity.

[hagjohn]

There are a lot of fools in this world.... btw, what do they both do? They both make phone calls. Granted in different ways but both do the same thing.

What if Cisco wants to get into the cell phone business?

ARG, they are not the same product, only a fool would confuse them, look at the patents, one is VOIP landline one is mobile!!!!!

[hagjohn]

MS has also been sued by everyone in the world by now too.

M$ made it nice and easy for me... :D

Try it it's not very hard....

p.s. I really have nothing against M$... It just grinds my gears when people try to stick up for M$ by bashing Apple or any other computer company. Like M$ was the greatest gift to computers.

Pssh!

[Stella]

Cisco have had iPhone products since 2004, and under Netgear since 2000.

What does it matter about how Cisco perform and the quality of their products? Please, be constructive - panning their products like you have done below, doesn't do the debate any good.. They still have the trademark.

Personally, I like the wrt54gc, its a great router.

I hope apple rips them a new one. I understand that Cisco has the trademark (on something that wasn't even on the market at the time, but seriously, are we supposed to take their iPhone seriously? I think they introduced it just so they would have grounds to sue apple.
Cisco has been putting out crappy products (just look at the wrt54gc fiasco) and even worse customer service for years now.
It's my hope they are dealt a loss and shrivle up and die somewhere in a corner...just my 2 cents.

Can you tell I've had bad experiences with Cisco?

Yes but the failure to defend the Trademark againt the previous infringers negates its validity.

Yes, you are correct. We shall have to see how this plays out.

[mambodancer]

I've always like "iPod Phone"... it capitalizes on an already established brand name.

"iCell", anyone?

iPhone just sounds.... smarmy. "Hey dude, I just bought an iphoneand I can use it as an iPod too!

Maybe it is time to retire the "i".

My thought was just to call it the aPhone for "Apple Phone." Alternatively, it could be called aiPhone for Apple internet phone. ai also implies "artificial intelligence" which sounds a lot smarter than "smart" phone.

You could rename Apple TV, aTV or aiTV.

Thank about it. Someone asks you what kind of cool phone you have. You answer, "I have aPhone." Right, but what kind of phone is it? It's aPhone! Uh, I can see that it's a phone but who makes it? Ohhh...Apple! Ahhhh!

Could make for some funny commercials.

[ntg]

I've always like "iPod Phone"... it capitalizes on an already established brand name.

"iCell", anyone?

iPhone just sounds.... smarmy. "Hey dude, I just bought an iphoneand I can use it as an iPod too!

Maybe it is time to retire the "i".

...or just iCall?

Or even, when they get the video-chat part working, just use the iChat moniker for the whole thing?

just a thought...

nig.

[Diatribe]

Seriously people get a grip.

It's not like Apple is building the same thing and then naming it the same.

1. Cisco's trademark is poorly defended. Look at all the iPhone products out there that are not from Cisco.

2. Apple has a trademark for iPhone too.

3. They are completely different devices. Just because you can call from them doesn't make them the same. That would be the same as saying my CD player and my iPod are the same. Cisco's VP's analogy about the iPod is just bad.

[clevin]

everybody can just stop now.
the discussion is going loop, settle downed previously got stirred up again.

everybody just go back read, and stop wasting resources of the forum. :p

and wtheck, ur discussion solve nothing, apple's official statement or cisco's blog won't change fact neither, how about wait for the court?

[dextertangocci]

P.S. If you've wondered why the phone won't be coming to Europe before Christmas: They'll need to add GPRS/UMTS, or they won't stand a chance. EDGE isn't available in Europe.

If that's true then Europe is WAAAAAAYYYYYYYY behind even South Africa. We have GPRS, EDGE, 3G and HSDPA;) :)

[foniks2020]

Maybe we should have a naming contest.

How about calling it the Newton.
Or Accident, as in what it will cause when used in a car.

I hope my posts don't appear back to back, I feel like such a loser when that happens.

I vote for the [apple logo]Phone much like the mark for [apple logo]TV

In fact now that they've cleared up the issues with Apple Records... all their products should be labeled that way

[Swarmlord]

I wish that Apple had just named it <apple>Phone like they did the TV and let Cisco sit on the name forever without getting a dime.

[obeygiant]

For the same reason the iPod isn't called the MacPod. They don't want to give the impression it is limited to just Mac users.

excellent point.



iTalk

iComm

iGizmo

iGetbraincancerfromusingthis

[SciTeach]

Why not just pick a new name altogether, afterall it's not just a phone. I don't know why thay can't come up with something it seems to be a particular skill at Apple. How's iEverythingbutthekitchensink?

Greatest Name Ever Mentioned!:D

[Saxking20]

I have an app that I use in my recording studio for timing sessions and invoicing which was called iWorks. I'm not sure of the timing on the name change-whether it was before Steve Jobs Keynote or shortly after-but my iWorks app suddenly had a revision and it was iBiz.
Not sure of the details of the change dollar wise but have a feeling that the owners got a few bucks......... :)

iBiz is a nice app, BTW. Check it out at:

http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibiz/

[freeny]

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200701111112DOWJONESDJONLINE000791_FORTUNE5.htm

Article just came out about how Apple is likely to win this lawsuit...

[uNext]

Ohh my god i am so surprised

[uNext]

Check it:

"If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we are very confident we would prevail." --Natalie Kerris, Apple spokeswoman

Article link: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/cisco-sues-apple-over-use/story.aspx?guid=%7B05D79CF8%2D7767%2D48E8%2D82BD%2D508F156055EE%7D

Of course she said that. Do you think she is going to go on record and say we are going to loose?

Shes an apple spokeswomen for chirst sake any words from apple will always be positive regardless of how the case is.

[benzslrpee]

oh geez this debate is getting kind of pointless. what's the worst that's going to happen? Apple changing the product name to apple phone/mac phone/ apple iphone? Apple knew this would happened, they took a gamble and now we just gotta see how it's going to roll out.

yes, it's not a legit way to name your product seeing as another company already released a phone with the same name but there's what should be and what it will be.

yeah Cisco had the name and the phone but seriously, after this week go poll the average American and ask them what an iPhone is. they sure as hell ain't gonna say "ooo it's name of the Cisco Voice over IP Phone that they patented when they acquired company XXXXX" i'll bet you dollars to donuts most people will say "it's the new cell phone from Apple".

sucks to be Cisco but this is business and business is war.

[Stella]

Absolutely no different than 'Rendevous'....

Very few people knew that Rendevous was a name of a network ( software ) product from a different company ( even almongst macrumors readers - not that it matters) . Just because its not well known product doesn't mean a large company can steam roll over smaller companies and take trademarks how they see fit!



yeah Cisco had the name and the phone but seriously, after this week go poll the average American and ask them what an iPhone is. they sure as hell ain't gonna say "ooo it's name of the Cisco Voice over IP Phone that they patented when they acquired company XXXXX" i'll bet you dollars to donuts most people will say "it's the new cell phone from Apple".

sucks to be Cisco but this is business and business is war.

[Appleski]

Stella, you should be more supportive, Apple is a great company, making great products. Are you sour because something went wrong with your Apple product?

Apple has to deal with money-hungry opportunistic comapnies that are just waiting to rip profits from Apple's inventions. Remember that Apple's margin is very slim so any small mistake or loss in market share can be very bad for Mac users.

I think Apple was trying to make a deal with Cisco to include Skype-like functionality in it's iPhone. Think about it, instead of using your minutes, just Wi-Fi or Bluetooth to some network and make free phone calls! Even international.
So Cisco might be the one to blame if we don't get that functionality.

[bbydon]

cnet has a better article that goe more into the suit.
dont have a link but its no the front page

[xli_ne]

Absolutely no different than 'Rendevous'....

Very few people knew that Rendevous was a name of a network ( software ) product from a different company ( even almongst macrumors readers - not that it matters) . Just because its not well known product doesn't mean a large company can steam roll over smaller companies and take trademarks how they see fit!

I wouldn't call Cisco a small company

[Appleski]

cnet has a better article that goe more into the suit.
dont have a link but its no the front page

Thanks, just read Cisco's complaint and I have noticed, that Cisco is stating they were not interested in giving rights to Apple, while Chandler clearly stated they were about to close the deal.
So in short, Cisco is full of it. And they had this complaint ready day after? Seems to me tha Cisco was ready for this long time ago.

[bbydon]

My guess is cisco is filing the complaint as a formality.
also what better advertising for thier product than to ride the coat tales of apples iphone

[cyberddot]

Stella, you should be more supportive, Apple is a great company, making great products. Are you sour because something went wrong with your Apple product?

Apple has to deal with money-hungry opportunistic comapnies that are just waiting to rip profits from Apple's inventions. Remember that Apple's margin is very slim so any small mistake or loss in market share can be very bad for Mac users.

I think Apple was trying to make a deal with Cisco to include Skype-like functionality in it's iPhone. Think about it, instead of using your minutes, just Wi-Fi or Bluetooth to some network and make free phone calls! Even international.
So Cisco might be the one to blame if we don't get that functionality.

:rolleyes: More supportive? Apple doesn't need blind support from fans, they need our money. I happen to love giving Apple money on occasion, but that doesn't mean that they garner my zealous support for every business decision they make.

We don't know who the good-guy or bad-guy was in the Apple/Cisco talks, but we do know that Apple does not have the iPhone™ in the US, so a lawsuit was in the making. It's not like Apple doesn't have a its own law team for launching trademark or patent infringement suits against other companies. If Cisco is right and Apple is wrong, then get it over with quick and move on, 'cause I want Apple to have the same success in the courtroom when they're defending the (?)Phone tech and gradually taking over the market with the device.

[chukronos]

Stella, you should be more supportive, Apple is a great company, making great products. Are you sour because something went wrong with your Apple product

I love Apple, but c'mon! You don't have to be sour at a company to realize they are being shady. iPhone from Cisco was posted on here a long time ago. That is why most people that have been reading about the upcoming apple phone were surprised at the name.


Apple has to deal with money-hungry opportunistic comapnies that are just waiting to rip profits from Apple's inventions.
Seriously? :confused: Infogear registered the name in 1993. Cisco bought infogear in 2000. The iPod came out in 2001.
Another important note: Cisco is worth $173 Billion, Apple is worth less than half at $83 Billion. The case can be made that ALL large companies are money-hungry and opportunistic. But Cisco was not waiting to rip off Apple. It is the other way around.

I think Apple was trying to make a deal with Cisco to include Skype-like functionality in it's iPhone. Think about it, instead of using your minutes, just Wi-Fi or Bluetooth to some network and make free phone calls! Even international.
So Cisco might be the one to blame if we don't get that functionality.

Cisco wanted to continue to keep their iPhone synonymous with voip. It appears that Apple was't willing to do that. So, the negotiations fell short when it came to voip. Seems to indicate that apple wants to incorporate their own voip. But, it isn't Cisco's fault.

There is no difference between the ethics of Apple and other companies. People just like Apple more because they are creative and make amazing products.

[Appleski]

...
We don't know who the good-guy or bad-guy was in the Apple/Cisco talks...

Well, first Cisco is trying to make a deal, but when it falls through, they claim they never intended to make a deal.

The fact is, everybody wants to get on Apple's band wagon, even big companies like Cisco, more is always more, and greedy get greedier.

[newmacmom]

what exactly went down in the board room except for the parties there, and I assure you, they are only releasing part of the story to the media. I find it quite amazing how quick some are to judge who is right and who is wrong in this when no one really knows the whole story. On the surface, it may look clear, but there is no way it is that black and white.

I, personally, think Jobs just did it so he can put the apple icon in front of the phone and then call it, "The phone formally known as iPhone" ;)

[chukronos]

From cnet:

Longtime Apple watcher Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, was blunt in his assessment of the situation.

"This was just brass balls on the part of Steve (Jobs), to go in there and just grab that trademark and not pay a license for it or negotiate. It's the height of arrogance," Kay said. "He basically thinks he can get away with it."

However, it's likely that the two companies will settle their differences, as prolonged litigation doesn't really serve either company, Kay said. "Apple is playing chicken with Cisco, and there's other companies I'd rather play chicken with," he said, referring to Cisco's deep pockets.

Cisco holds a clear advantage in the legal dispute as the trademark holder of record and having already released products using the iPhone name, said Bruce Sunstein, co-founder of the Boston law firm Bromberg & Sunstein.

[Appleski]

Why didn't you add the rest of it, the quotes from Cisco's Chandler about how close they were to making a deal and the link to Cisco's filing were they say they never wanted to make a deal.
It is black on white.

Cisco was clearly playing a game, they were ready and they expected this. It must have taken days to do a research, and they filed the day after Steve's keynote.

[Kuska]

iTV = Apple TV
iPhone = Apple Phone + Lots of free publicity !!!!!:D

[chukronos]

Why didn't you add the rest of it, the quotes from Cisco's Chandler about how close they were to making a deal and the link to Cisco's filing were they say they never wanted to make a deal.
It is black on white.

Cisco was clearly playing a game, they were ready and they expected this. It must have taken days to do a research, and they filed the day after Steve's keynote.

I didn't include the rest because it says, that most likely Cisco is in the right, and has a clear advantage. It pretty much just backs up what was quoted above. But, for arguments sake, here is a link to the rest of it. http://tinyurl.com/y8tp9c

It doesn't appear that anyone is saying they weren't negotiating, which you claim puts Cisco in the wrong. It is clear they were negotiating. It is also clear that an agreement wasn't reached. It also appears that Cisco put up an offer. It doesn't appear that Apple accepted it. So, they just stole the name. Although, it is very possible, as you suggest, that during negotiating Cisco knew that Jobs and Apple were shady and willing to steal their product name. Maybe word had gotten out.

Just because they make awesome products, including the new phone, it doesn't mean they are entitled to everything they want, regardless of who owns it. They could have named the product from a myriad of different names.

[Columbo]

The WiiPhone.

Can you imagine a virtual console on that thing? Nintendo ports a handful of old nes and snes classics, puts them up on iTunes. This would work. Hold the phone horizontally, with virtual directional pad on the bottom left, virtual a, b, x, y on the bottom right. Use the accelomowatzit for the l and r shoulder buttons (tilt the phone to engage - imagine that with starfox). I'm not a gamer, but I waste my share of time on my nes emulator, and would be all over that in a handheld context.

I'm not that familiar with the Wii itself, but you have to figure that the phone could have some very interesting uses as a gaming controller (kinda in a ds sort of way).

(this obviously won't happen, but it should. makes 1000X more sense than the next-gen apple console rumors)

[Coheebuzz]

yeah Cisco had the name and the phone but seriously, after this week go poll the average American and ask them what an iPhone is. they sure as hell ain't gonna say "ooo it's name of the Cisco Voice over IP Phone that they patented when they acquired company XXXXX" i'll bet you dollars to donuts most people will say "it's the new cell phone from Apple".

sucks to be Cisco but this is business and business is war.

I agree with you, trademarks can can be lost if a company doesn't take the necessary measures to protect them. A market research that shows 80% or nore of users pointing the iPhone name to Apple will be a strong weapon to use in court.

I wouldn't be surprised if the court gave the name back to Apple without giving Cisco any royalties. I know it sounds too much, but with lawyers i've learned to never say never, so one never knows... :)

[craigverse]

Well given iTV became Apple TV

Let iPhone become, Apple Phone. or iPod + phone.

Shrug. They have a few months before the product ships and all to figure it out. Though I guess they had to announce the product yesterday else they would have been creamed by the crowds let alone the analysts for coming out with Apple TV and nothing else.

Mind you, the "Apple TV" name doesn't work for me, good way to get the buyers confused....

A: i bought an Apple TV over the weekend...
B: really? how big of a screen does it have? 50 inches?
A: no screen...
B: i thought you said you bought a tv?
A: i did but it is just the box that connects to a tv...
B: so you bought a box that is called a tv that you have to connect to a tv to use?
A: yes...
B: thats stupid.

I can't think of a better name for it right now, but the current name is pretty misleading.


I'm at work and this seriously made me laugh out loud. I got a couple strange looks from the people around me. :P

[chibianh]

Check this out..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

I guess Apple found out at the last minute and decided not to go through the deal with Cisco.

[balamw]

A voice from Cisco, looks like they may have tried to get a piece of the pie, and Apple said "No thanks!"

http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

What about that supposed press release announcing a name change to "iTouch Mobile?"

B

[hexagenia]

So how's this for a theory. Apple courts Cisco, leading them to believe that Apple legal's decision to sign a licensing arrangement for the term "iPhone" is imminent. On the day of the hypothetical signing of this agreement, incidentally the day that the actual device is introduced, the day that Apple wants the most possible exposure, Apple declines the agreement, hence forcing Cisco's hand. Cisco sues, taking Apple's bait.

Why bait, you ask? Apple counters, after it is introduced, that Cisco's suit is "silly." After all, the term "iPhone" has been in the public lexicon for a number of years--Cisco's claim has no merit. And here's where it gets interesting. Why would Apple offer a defense that would admit "iPhone" into the public lexicon, and thereby, offer other vendors the ability to brand their product as an "iPhone?" The answer. Because that's exactly what Apple wants.

Think about the Keynote. Three Things. First, Steve introduces the new product as a "new class of device," presumably a class for which no nomenclature exists. Second, Steve makes a point of dissing the entire Smartphone crowd by contrasting it with the new "iPhone." Three, Steve makes a point of delineating the "wall" of patents that have accompanied the invention of this device and that no one would be able to touch it for five years.

So, Apple essentially invites its competitors to a competition where it will have the advantage for five years. Not only invites them, but tempts them, through the Cisco suit, to follow Apple's lead and name this new generation of devices, generically, "iPhones" the way that "iPods" have become generic terms (and dictionary admitted terms) in the public vocabulary. And these competitors, ever unaware of Steve's wile, take the bait, name their products "iPhone," in a space they can't possibly compete realistically in for three years, maybe even Steve's hyperbolic five.

A marketing strategy out of a suit to create a vocabulary for a new class of device where Apple can't lose and the stakes with Cisco are, given the market, incidental (and only if Cisco's claims are upheld, which is far from clear). Not bad for your everyday conspiracy, huh? And everyone now knows what an "iPhone" is and who makes the best one. Not bad for a week's work!

[Zadillo]

Check this out..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

I guess Apple found out at the last minute and decided not to go through the deal with Cisco.

Man, if that does end up to be how this all works out, that is pretty damned hilarious. I still wouldn't mind it just being called iPod phone, but whatever...:)

[SPUY767]

Cisco was not waiting to rip off Apple. It is the other way around.

Bollocks, Apple has something that Cisco doesn't. Brand recognition. Cisco has every right to be litigious in this matter, but you can bet that Apple's brand clout has more than a little to do with Cisco's choice to sue. All the legal coverage of this dispute will get both phones on TV, but unfortunately, I think no matter what Apple comes out on top as far as the exposure thing goes.

[Zadillo]

Bollocks, Apple has something that Cisco doesn't. Brand recognition. Cisco has every right to be litigious in this matter, but you can bet that Apple's brand clout has more than a little to do with Cisco's choice to sue. All the legal coverage of this dispute will get both phones on TV, but unfortunately, I think no matter what Apple comes out on top as far as the exposure thing goes.

Yeah, I think that's actually becoming clearer.

Honestly, who here even knew that Cisco had the iPhone trademark?

I honestly didn't until I saw the news story in December about the iPhone being launched, and the big surprise was that it was a Cisco/Linksys VOIP product. But what of course made that a surprise is that almost everyone had been using the iPhone name to refer to Apple's rumored phone.

That zdnet post above seems to indicate that Cisco had been sitting on the trademark for a long time, and it definitely seems like they might not have even bothered putting the name on a product until they really knew that Apple had some interest in it.

It seems awfully suspicious now that Cisco released a new 'iPhone' product only weeks before Apple ended up launching their product. It makes it pretty clear I think that Cisco in fact did want to get some press out of this (and again, honestly, who the heck would be talking about Cisco and their VOIP phones otherwise?).

I just think it is pretty funny that the end result of this could be that Cisco didn't even properly protect their trademark before, and let it be abandoned, and didn't start using it until too late (when they knew Apple wanted it, and thought they could do something to try and squeeze money out of Apple or publicity or the "interoperability" to try and find some way for Cisco products to get some sales thanks to Apple's product).

-Zadillo

[Hashton]

Hexogenia,

wicked theory, if Apple did it, it is a very smart move, if this is not their intension, then they have found a loop hole in the iPhone Trademark and with A-Team of lawyers they can literally bend Cisco *smiles*

[ascender]

How bizarre. I'm sure it'll be worked out, but its like Cisco announcing a new networking product called the iPod. Its not an MP3 player and they don't own the trademark for it, so they think they can just get away with it.

I'm sure if it was that way round, people would be quick to slag off Cisco and declare them to be no better than Microsoft, boycott them now, etc.

[Rodimus Prime]

Either way in the end this entire iPhone thing is bad for apple. If apple losses they have to deal with all those issues and will not be able to use iPhone.

If apple wins they can use iPhone but so can everyone else and apple would have ZERO legal power to stop them since iPhone would no longer be a trademark term so anyone can use iPhone as a name for there phone saying it has some type of Internet compatible including selling cell phones under that name.
So in apple best interested it might be to lose this case and spend the money it would take to get the trademark on it or at the very least apple will have a name for its phone that is not generic and it would keep it safe from everyone using that name.

[cgc]

Either way in the end this entire iPhone thing is bad for apple. If apple losses they have to deal with all those issues and will not be able to use iPhone.

If apple wins they can use iPhone but so can everyone else and apple would have ZERO legal power to stop them since iPhone would no longer be a trademark term so anyone can use iPhone as a name for there phone saying it has some type of Internet compatible including selling cell phones under that name.
So in apple best interested it might be to lose this case and spend the money it would take to get the trademark on it or at the very least apple will have a name for its phone that is not generic and it would keep it safe from everyone using that name.

No...there are issues with Cisco's trademark that would not apply to the iPod, for example. Put for your pitchfork and torches, it will all be ok.

[Diatribe]

Check this out..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

I guess Apple found out at the last minute and decided not to go through the deal with Cisco.

Yeah I read that too, it would be pretty hilarious if Apple gets the Trademark because Cisco abandoned it and then sued Cisco because of infringement :D

[Rodimus Prime]

No...there are issues with Cisco's trademark that would not apply to the iPod, for example. Put for your pitchfork and torches, it will all be ok.

I think you missed the point.
Apple is going to try to prove the Cisco did not have anything using the trademark term (iPhone) and by doing so it would remove the trademark on it allowing any one to use it. In doing so apple has no way to stop any one else from selling a product under the name iPhone since it is not a trademark term.

If apple loses they can not use it at all.

in the end it is a loss loss for apple.

[Zadillo]

I think you missed the point.
Apple is going to try to prove the Cisco did not have anything using the trademark term (iPhone) and by doing so it would remove the trademark on it allowing any one to use it. In doing so apple has no way to stop any one else from selling a product under the name iPhone since it is not a trademark term.

If apple loses they can not use it at all.

in the end it is a loss loss for apple.

That's not true. As other articles have pointed out, the next company in line for the rights to the trademark is Ocean Telecom, which is widely believed to be a front company used by Apple to register for the trademark without giving away what they were doing.

I don't see where you get that an Apple victory invalidating Cisco's trademark would allow anyone to use it.

-Zadillo

[madmax_2069]

if someone loses a trademark term it becomes open and then the next person can make it a trademark term and once that is done no one else can use that term unless they dump it or lose it.