PDA

View Full Version : Cisco Suing Apple For iPhone Trademark Infringement




Pages : [1] 2

majiklantrn
Jan 10, 2007, 05:05 PM
I was wondering when this was going to happen..



SkyBell
Jan 10, 2007, 05:07 PM
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070110/cisco_apple.html?.v=1

Who else knew this was coming?

iW00t
Jan 10, 2007, 05:08 PM
If Cisco sues Apple, next thing we know will be...

Apple purchased Cisco :D

balamw
Jan 10, 2007, 05:09 PM
Apparently so:http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070110/cisco_iphone.html?.v=1

B

majiklantrn
Jan 10, 2007, 05:09 PM
msnbc.com had it as breaking news.

balamw
Jan 10, 2007, 05:11 PM
If Cisco sues Apple, next thing we know will be...

Apple purchased Cisco :D

Even Apple doesn't have $175 Billion (Cisco's market cap) dollars lying around.

B

Queso
Jan 10, 2007, 05:11 PM
Clearly nobody at Apple saw it coming. Cisco own the name, and were first to market with a shipping phone product. Unless Apple buy the name off them (for a lot of cash now they've announced the actual gadget), Apple will have to rename theirs.

What's wrong with calling it the iPod phone or the @Phone (@ being the Apple symbol of course)?

balamw
Jan 10, 2007, 05:13 PM
Clearly nobody at Apple saw it coming.
They saw it coming, they were reportedly in the middle of discussions as of yesterday. They goofed and went public before settling the deal.

:(

B

bbydon
Jan 10, 2007, 05:13 PM
wierd...what happened to the deal?

applelabs
Jan 10, 2007, 05:14 PM
I guess the negotiations (http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-01-09T190050Z_01_N09161330_RTRIDST_0_APPLE-IPHONE-CISCO-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna) didn't go well.

TheAnswer
Jan 10, 2007, 05:15 PM
Cisco's strong hand is "i" is for internet Phone and prior product. Apple's strong hand is "we invented "i" is for internet" and international trademarks. Still, stupid move by Apple not to line up all the ducks before pulling the shotgun.

Maybe they'll just rebrand it Phone (that's apple symbol Phone for you Bootcamp and PC viewers).

bbydon
Jan 10, 2007, 05:16 PM
apple had trademarked the name mobile me
what happened to that name

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 10, 2007, 05:17 PM
Just call it something else or handover the millions. No big Deal for Apple.

jsw
Jan 10, 2007, 05:18 PM
apple had trademarked the name mobile me
what happened to that nameWindows ME

bbydon
Jan 10, 2007, 05:19 PM
what the hell happened...
is apple saying screw it...sue us

balamw
Jan 10, 2007, 05:19 PM
what the hell happened...
is apple saying screw it...sue us
It has happened before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

B

bbydon
Jan 10, 2007, 05:21 PM
ah..... wow this is crazy.
iphone
apple inc
itv

im surprised my apples name choices.
they are like screw it we will name it what we want.

bbydon
Jan 10, 2007, 05:22 PM
so now that apple computer is apple inc
u thing apple corp will when thier appeal for the ipod music suit

jsw
Jan 10, 2007, 05:23 PM
so now that apple computer is apple inc
u thing apple corp will when thier appeal for the ipod music suit
No. That's been worked out in the courts already.

Zwhaler
Jan 10, 2007, 05:25 PM
While I can't find any internet news articles on this, I heard from several people today that Cisco is sueing Apple because (most likely) Apple is using the name iPhone for their new phone, while the name is already being used for Cisco's product. Have any of you heard about this? Is it true, because it would make sense.

EDIT: thanks for moving my thread even though i searched i found nothing on the forum :D

gloss
Jan 10, 2007, 05:27 PM
So much for that agreement (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/10/D8MIN5CO0.html) we'd heard about.

MacRumors
Jan 10, 2007, 05:28 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Cisco is suing Apple (http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html) and seeking an injunction to prevent Apple from using Cisco's "iPhone" US trademark. As of yesterday, Cisco representatives said that a deal was close (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/01/20070109230510.shtml) for licensing the trademark to Apple, however it appears as though Apple's announcement before a deal was reached may have forced Cisco into the courts.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel, Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.

"Today's iPhone is not tomorrow's iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand," Chandler concluded.

With its lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Cisco is seeking an injunction to prevent Apple from copying Cisco's iPhone trademark.

TheAnswer
Jan 10, 2007, 05:33 PM
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?

Also be interesting to see if Apple started getting trademarks overseas to avoid the rumor mill and Cisco found out and beat them to the punch at the trademark office in the US?

Chimera
Jan 10, 2007, 05:34 PM
It struck me as strange at the time that Apple would use the name iPhone while negotiations were still ongoing and now it seems they are paying for it. As SiliconAddict said: Apple :rolleyes:

combatcolin
Jan 10, 2007, 05:34 PM
Not the wisest of moves.

spyderracer393
Jan 10, 2007, 05:35 PM
well......there goes the lovely apple stock. I can already see it plumetting - hopefully Apple can pull out a win on this one...

hyperpasta
Jan 10, 2007, 05:35 PM
They'll settle out of court and this will be a non-issue.

Unless Apple decides to switch to my personal name of choice:
The MacPhone.

I think it would really help switch more iPhone owners to the Mac... they'd somehow psychologically think that they already sorta kinda have a Mac-type thing, so why not go for a Mac computer?

bentley
Jan 10, 2007, 05:36 PM
http://www.geliosoft.com/3d-flag-screensavers/pirate-flag-screensaver.jpg

andyh2
Jan 10, 2007, 05:36 PM
Oh crud. well, thats what cisco's gonna do! I hope that apple doesn't have to change the name :(

j-a-x
Jan 10, 2007, 05:37 PM
Apple hasn't actually released the iPhone have they? So I doubt it would be a big deal to change the name before it ships, but I don't know what issues could could come up due to the fact that they used the name in their keynote and on their webpage.


By the way, why is the TV thing called Apple TV not iTV? Could the iPhone become the Apple Phone?

lmalave
Jan 10, 2007, 05:38 PM
I see this as taking the same trajectory as the iTV. I think when the phone actually launches, it will just be called "Apple Phone" and the branding will just be the Apple logo with the word "Phone" next to it.

It makes sense, if you think about it. Apple is saying that they are reinventing the mobile phone, so why not have you branding just be "Phone" plus the Apple logo?

iamoneagain
Jan 10, 2007, 05:38 PM
I was expecting Apple to call it the Apple phone (using the logo) after they announce itv's new name. Especially since the real iphone was just released last month. If they don't make a deal, that's my guess of the name or possibly mac phone.

Edit: Looks like a was 3rd to post the same thing.

jbernie
Jan 10, 2007, 05:42 PM
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.

EricNau
Jan 10, 2007, 05:42 PM
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).

RodThePlod
Jan 10, 2007, 05:43 PM
...I never liked the name iPhone, anyways...

:rolleyes:

emotion
Jan 10, 2007, 05:44 PM
Typical. I was very surprised to see that name still being used at the Keynote after that iPhone release before xmas.

They'll have to put that price up to 599 and 699 and increase the tie in to 3 years now :)

MrSmith
Jan 10, 2007, 05:44 PM
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.

Sun Baked
Jan 10, 2007, 05:44 PM
Well Apple can alway use their Sosumi brand name. :o

emotion
Jan 10, 2007, 05:48 PM
It's not like it's an internet device anyway.

Umm it has wifi as the fastest form of communication in and out. What's not internet about that?

longofest
Jan 10, 2007, 05:48 PM
Note: While Cisco has the US trademark for "iPhone," Apple does have the trademark for "iPhone" in some other countries (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061016171333.shtml).

cxny
Jan 10, 2007, 05:49 PM
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?

PlaceofDis
Jan 10, 2007, 05:49 PM
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.

yes it is

ibook30
Jan 10, 2007, 05:51 PM
They'll settle out of court and this will be a non-issue.

Unless Apple decides to switch to my personal name of choice:
The MacPhone.


They might just do that- in fact, this could just be posturing. If Cisco did not take action against Apple, it could be viewed as abandoning their trademark. In other words if they don't pursue Apple- then they could loose their right to ever pursue the trademark- of course I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on the forums....

macFanDave
Jan 10, 2007, 05:51 PM
to assume the iPhone name without getting Cisco's blessing are missing the point.

As long as this controversy goes on, Apple will be getting daily free publicity for the iPhone or whatever they are going to call it. Marketing people understand a fact that rational, logical people can simply not grasp: there's no such thing as bad publicity.

As a highly intelligent person, when I hear bad things about a company, I avoid their products. Ordinary people hear company names, but the negative information slowly fades and only the name remains. When that person sees a product from that company, they feel familiar with it, thus making a sale more probable.

Anyways, iAnything is a rip-off of iMac, so, in reality, Apple really owns all of those names and reserves the right to use them whenever it wants.

Some camera company made a camera called the *ist. Anyone naming their product the *ster, or the *meister is just waiting to get screwed. Same thing with Cisco.

MrSmith
Jan 10, 2007, 05:52 PM
Umm it has wifi as the fastest form of communication in and out. What's not internet about that?

yes it is
OK. I mean it's not primarily an Internet browser. It's a phone.

Rocketman
Jan 10, 2007, 05:52 PM
They saw it coming, they were reportedly in the middle of discussions as of yesterday. They goofed and went public before settling the deal.

:(

B

Nope.

A trademark has to do whith public perception. While Cisco has a registered trademark for iPhone in ONE jurisdiction worldwide, Apple has it in many others.

Furthermore PUBLIC perception of the name of Apple's cellphone product BEFORE the announcement was that it would be called "iPhone."

This is not a cut and dried claim by Cisco.

One could claim there is a "Cisco iPhone" and also an "Apple iPhone", both of which are quite different and differentiated in the market.

This is a negotiation tactic by both sides. Obviously Cisco did something akin to domain name squatting on this issue.

Fine.

Just ask less and settle it.

Rocketman

fiddle245
Jan 10, 2007, 05:52 PM
Bad for Apple- Cisco has the upper hand, since Apple has
a ton to lose if the iPhone flops

Ha ze
Jan 10, 2007, 05:52 PM
I can't think of a better name for it right now, but the current name is pretty misleading.

I wish I had come up with this idea, but TelePort I think sounds pretty awesome, I ordered AppleTV anyway

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.

I too am growing tired of the "i"

perhaps they could devise a new naming scheme

i - for applications if they must
Apple - for devices (minus the iPod of course)
Mac - For computers

makes sense to me

emotion
Jan 10, 2007, 05:53 PM
Note: While Cisco has the US trademark for "iPhone," Apple does have the trademark for "iPhone" in some other countries (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061016171333.shtml).


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

BillGates
Jan 10, 2007, 05:53 PM
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.

It is supposed to be an internet device. We want it to be an internet device. We want VoIP in addition to GSM. We want internet based syncing, shareing, etc...

iPhone is the perfect name but then it is the perfect name for Cisco's phone too.

apfhex
Jan 10, 2007, 05:54 PM
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 think Cisco using the name "iPhone" in the first place was a publicity stunt.

It's not like it's an internet device anyway.
It very specifically is an internet device. Or did you not see the keynote. :)

I don't care either way if it's the iPhone, they could call it the Mac Phone or Phone just as easily, although then it wouldn't remind people that it's also an iPod.

howard
Jan 10, 2007, 05:55 PM
I really think the "i" names are getting old. why not start a new trend and, like the appletv, call it the applephone.

bilbo--baggins
Jan 10, 2007, 05:55 PM
Publicity stunt?

The extra media coverage might help pay for the settlement?

Excellent entertainment value. What happens next? Tune in for the next exciting installment!

Perhaps Apple could argue that the iPhone name was a term in common usage for a product people presumed Apple was developing? I wonder how far back the term iPhone goes in connection to Apple?

Project
Jan 10, 2007, 05:56 PM
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/01/10/apple_iphone_and_trademarks_its_buying_ciscos.html

interesting. puts a completely different slant on it.

ulyssespdx
Jan 10, 2007, 05:57 PM
Cisco owns the name IN THE US. Apple owns it most everywhere else.

So, Cisco's going to have a difficult time selling their "iPhone" in Japan or Europe, for example. Apple can immediately file a response injunction to stop all sales of Cisco's product overseas.

anyway, this story is overblown. not an issue. like a lot of MacRumors posts.

psycho bob
Jan 10, 2007, 05:57 PM
Well looking at the Apple iPhone (the fact you have to say 'Apple' iPhone and not just iPhone is why Cisco will most likely be suing and will probably win at least for US markets) product photos it doesn't have any reference to 'iPhone' on it so branding it limited to advertising and packaging.

Apple must have known about this, I can only assume when Cisco announced the shipping iPhone it took Apple completely by surprise. Steve made a big thing about Apple patenting the technology behind the device so I find it so odd they didn't copyright the name long before now (in the US)!

I was disappointed by the keynote yesterday, great technology and design for the device but immensely slack when it comes to actually getting it to the market and naming it. I can understand why they left all computer based announcements so as not to have them overshadowed but Apple TV got the rough end of the deal. The keynote yesterday should have stuck to Mac related items including Apple TV. If ever there was reason for an Apple Special Event (most of which to date should have been tackled under the trade's description act!) it was the iPhone or whatever it gets called. I can't see Apple wanting to back down on this not after the hugely inflated introduction they gave it yesterday but what can they do? The writing was on the wall when Cisco released the product and they stood by did nothing then took the heavy handed approach in typical Apple style 'If we do what we want to anyway the other side will back down or we'll drag it through the courts'. Bottom line - there are better names then iPhone! The 'i' branding is getting old and has rather lost it's meaning and marketing appeal. The iPod will continue but other than that only the iMac remains on the hardware front and as a concept that has changed hugely.

mark88
Jan 10, 2007, 05:57 PM
Were Apple the first company to come out with a 'iProduct' ?

if so, then other companies should leave alone IMO

Ha ze
Jan 10, 2007, 05:58 PM
how do you make the little apple logo in the text?

lol sorry

SiliconAddict
Jan 10, 2007, 05:58 PM
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?

Also be interesting to see if Apple started getting trademarks overseas to avoid the rumor mill and Cisco found out and beat them to the punch at the trademark office in the US?

Cisco released the iPhone last month and trademarked iPhone in 1999. Try again.

Cisco's strong hand is "i" is for internet Phone and prior product. Apple's strong hand is "we invented "i" is for internet" and international trademarks. Still, stupid move by Apple not to line up all the ducks before pulling the shotgun.

Maybe they'll just rebrand it Phone (that's apple symbol Phone for you Bootcamp and PC viewers).


There have been iWhatevers out before Apple started using i.... Try again.

emotion
Jan 10, 2007, 06:00 PM
I think the iThing is getting old too.

They'll buy the name though after reading that Guardian report.

balamw
Jan 10, 2007, 06:02 PM
This is not a cut and dried claim by Cisco.
I agree with that entirely, but Apple would have done better in settling this before they showed their hand. Now Cisco knows exactly what Apple wants to use the trademark for and how big the market they expect for the device etc...

It's certainly not unprecedented for companies to use other people's trademarks, a case in point is Apple's Mighty Mouse, which includes Mighty Mouse © Viacom International Inc. All Rights Reserved. at the bottom of its webpage (http://www.apple.com/mightymouse).

B

shelterpaw
Jan 10, 2007, 06:02 PM
Well if the negotiations don't workout and Apple is forced to change the name, I will submit the name I like.

pPod

Okay I'm kidding. May I have some jello now? :p

Abstract
Jan 10, 2007, 06:04 PM
I really think the "i" names are getting old. why not start a new trend and, like the appletv, call it the applephone.

I haven't read the entire thread entirely, but why not just put that Apple logo + phone at the end like they do with Apple TV, and you have naming continuity. They had naming continuity with their "i" names, but since they're moving away from that, they should do so and stick with it.

eRondeau
Jan 10, 2007, 06:05 PM
Not sure what to think of this. One one hand, there's always some @$$4073 lawyer ready to put the brakes on true innovation and meaningful progress like we saw yesterday. But on the other hand, Apple itself has been very aggressively defending any and all possible trademark violations for years (remember iPodLounge.com?) I sure hope Steve got something in writing from the dour, humorless CEO of Cisco prior to yesterday's big announcement.

PS -- Come to think of it, there's an alternative long-distance company here in Canada that's been using the "iPhone" slogan in their advertising for years. What's up with that???

Porco
Jan 10, 2007, 06:06 PM
They should just call it the Apple_iPhone. No legal hassles. :)

rdowns
Jan 10, 2007, 06:07 PM
Nope.

A trademark has to do whith public perception. While Cisco has a registered trademark for iPhone in ONE jurisdiction worldwide, Apple has it in many others.

Furthermore PUBLIC perception of the name of Apple's cellphone product BEFORE the announcement was that it would be called "iPhone."

This is not a cut and dried claim by Cisco.

One could claim there is a "Cisco iPhone" and also an "Apple iPhone", both of which are quite different and differentiated in the market.

This is a negotiation tactic by both sides. Obviously Cisco did something akin to domain name squatting on this issue.

Fine.

Just ask less and settle it.

Rocketman

Further muddying the waters is Apple owning the iphone.org domain for years.

Erasmus
Jan 10, 2007, 06:07 PM
I've got an idea...

Say they combine the two names "iPod" and "iPhone" into "iPone", and then get this... Condense it to "iPwn"! (Pronounced "eye-pown") (in joke & bad joke)

Well Apple Inc. has the rights to iPhone in other countries. I'm not a lawyer, but surely Apple could get around it somehow, especially as the products are being made outside of the US and imported.

If not, then you Americans might get a "special" version that either Apple pays royalties on, or with a little "?" replacing the "i".

On the other hand, Apple could just send Cisco some hired goons or parcel bombs.

Clive At Five
Jan 10, 2007, 06:07 PM
PhonePod lives again!

Unfortunately the same can't be said for "TelePort."

"AppleTV" PSHH! How lame is that?

-Clive

hbwill
Jan 10, 2007, 06:09 PM
Trademarks do not operate like patents. Federal registration of a mark does not necessarily make it a trademark. It only creates a presumption with certain advantages in litigation (such as burden of evidence shifting). Ultimately, it comes down to consumer good will and recognition.

Also, on Apple TV, isn't it just a matter of time for Apple to sell LCD televisions with Apple TV capabilities built in?

MrSmith
Jan 10, 2007, 06:10 PM
It very specifically is an internet device. Or did you not see the keynote. :)
Er, no... I checked out the Apple homepage, though :) . OK. What I'm trying to say is that I know it connects to the Internet for maps, web pages and mail (2 of which existing phones already do, though not as elegantly) but I don't think (IMO) people are going to buy it for its Internet capabilities. My eyes are bad enough without squinting at a small screen like that. Now ease of use... that's a different matter. I'll have one.

SiliconAddict
Jan 10, 2007, 06:11 PM
I have only read the 1st page of this thread, but I found it strange that Apple is moving away from the "i" names, and yet they wanted to name this phone "iPhone".

Why not just call it Apple Phone to go along with their new, non-Mac product, "Apple TV"? Just put that Apple logo + phone at the end like they do with Apple TV, and you have continuity.


Prob because its pretty much a universal name at this point. Anyone who has talked about a Apple based phone has pretty much called in iPhone. That's not to say they couldn't change it but realistically what's in a name? At minimum you want something that is easy to say. One word preferably. Say it out loud. iPhone vs. iPod Phone or Apple Phone. iPhone is smaller, more compact, and easier to use in a conversation.
Someone at Apple needs to be fired for not having this completed months ago. $50 says its comes down to Apple..Check that Jobs's insane need for secrecy and the fear that someone at Cisco would leak that they were in negotiations for the name. :rolleyes:


Quite honestly it makes me somewhat nauseated to see such blind devotion to Apple. Cisco has had the trademark for iPhone for a LONG time. This is 120% Apple's fault and they deserve to get slapped around for this.


I stand corrected. From Ars...



Cisco has sued Apple over the iPhone name, a day after media reports suggested that Apple was licensing the name from the networking giant. Cisco acquired the trademark "iPhone" in 2000 from InfoGear Technology (which itself filed in 1996), and was apparently unable to reach an agreement with Apple. It now appears as though Cisco is going to force Apple's hand.

morrisce
Jan 10, 2007, 06:11 PM
Simple answer....


iFone

twoodcc
Jan 10, 2007, 06:12 PM
well i'm not surprized, but for some reason i thought apple already trademarkted the name years ago.....? anyways, i hope they work it out somehow....

BenRoethig
Jan 10, 2007, 06:14 PM
Cisco's strong hand is "i" is for internet Phone and prior product. Apple's strong hand is "we invented "i" is for internet" and international trademarks. Still, stupid move by Apple not to line up all the ducks before pulling the shotgun.

Maybe they'll just rebrand it Phone (that's apple symbol Phone for you Bootcamp and PC viewers).

Especially when it doesn't hit the street for another six months. This is one of those times when reality and the reality distortion field don't exactly line up.

blybug
Jan 10, 2007, 06:14 PM
A perfect opportunity to rebrand it what it should be called: "iPod phone". This would be consistent with "iPod shuffle" and "iPod nano". Makes sense even from an historic point of view, witness the short-lived "iPod photo" brand name, which eventually became "iPod" once photo capabilities were added to the lower models. Once the hard drive of the iPhone gets bigger, and some its new interface features and big screen are added to the iPod, the 2 are indistinguishable and become one: "iPod"

"iPhone" = "iPod phone" - "Pod"

why, oh why, while the iPod is still riding so high in the mind of the general public, would they subtract out the "Pod"??? "iPod phone" tells Joe Consumer exactly what this thing is..."iPhone", not so much...:confused:

freeny
Jan 10, 2007, 06:15 PM
I thought it was all to good to be true.:rolleyes:
Let the legal fun begin!

Cisco 1
Apple 0

dvkid
Jan 10, 2007, 06:18 PM
It doesn't seem to me as though Apple could be in much hot water here. The only question is will they be able to stop Cisco from using the name. A major argument would be to ask any person that if you released a new product and called it iProduct who would you assume it is made by.

The i prefix is an Apple staple and although it is a minute piece of many registered trademarks, it could put Apple on the winning side of this one.

shelterpaw
Jan 10, 2007, 06:19 PM
Simple answer....


iFone
It's phonetically the same, so it wouldn't fly.

whistlerpro
Jan 10, 2007, 06:19 PM
Now I don't know if this means anything, but apples website, on all the pages to do with the iPhone, minus the front page and the top tab and any descriptions, all use (applesymbol)iPhone. Could this be insurance? I mean apple don't do that for any other product.

KingYaba
Jan 10, 2007, 06:20 PM
Just call it myPhone in stead of iPhone.... problem solved. :cool:

kresh
Jan 10, 2007, 06:20 PM
I think this is much ado about nothing.

It costs what? $60.00 to file a suit. They have the obligation to protect the property, it's a requirment of the law.

1) Apple jumped the gun before returning the signed contract and announced the "iPhone".

2) Cisco initiates protective action of the name

3) Apple returns signed contract

4) Cisco drops suit

5) 20 years from now if it ever comes up, or becomes cloudy who really owns the name, then Cisco can point to the filed suit as an attempt at protection of the name they owned.



edit: I just have a feeling that Apple is not going to use iPhone anyway. It struck me kind of funny how Steve said it. He said "We're calling it the iPhone", that's almost exactly like what he said about iTV.

Could "iPhone" just be a code word until it is available for sale, then they change the name to "Apple Phone"? If not, then why make the point at the very end about changing from Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc.?

I wonder if eventually we will see the word Apple replace the "i" infront of very obvious names:

Apple Toaster
Apple Phone Video
Apple Phone Nano
Apple Phone Shuffle
Apple TV
Apple Vibrator
Apple on and on

Avicdar
Jan 10, 2007, 06:20 PM
This is probably what has happened:

- The rumor mills, analysts, pundits and wall street players all attached Apples phone project to the name 'iPhone' very early on.

- Multiple news stories ran that more or less grew the legend of this phone beyond all reason, to the point where various analysts were saying that Apple HAD to announce this phone at MacWorld. How exactly that fever pitch built and why analysts were saying it was so important - who knows?

- Apple marketing recognized that it was important to announce the phone at MacWorld, and Steve did too. Problem - Cisco owns the name in the US. Marketing would insist that Apple had to use the iPhone name, because all of the free press before and after MacWorld would have to remain consistent to the name, or there was a danger of people thinking Ciscos POS was the 'iPhone' that everyone was waiting for.

- Steve basically decided that since they were only announcing the phone now, they could call it iPhone and try to negotiate with Cisco. In the meantime all of the press would continue to call the device the 'iPhone' and Apple could try to get the name.

- If negotations with Cisco fell through (which Apple probably already knew they would) the worst case scenario would be that Apple would be legally required to change the name. This ruling of course would come long after all of the press hype had evaporated.

- Once the name is changed, Apple will get all kinds of free press a few months down the road announcing the name change much closer to the launch. More free press.

So - did Apple predict that this would happen? Probably. In fact, they probably wanted it to. What do you want to bet that the negotiations with Cisco went something like this:

Apple: Hi! You guys suck! Give us the iPhone name!

Cisco: Huh? I thought you guys wanted to negotate in good faith?

Apple: Did your mommy dress you this morning?

Cisco: Whats going on here? Why are you being like this?

Apple: Give us the iPhone name you unkempt malcontents!!

Cisco: See you in court.

Apple: :)
----------------------------

morrisce
Jan 10, 2007, 06:21 PM
It's phonetically the same, so it wouldn't fly.

ah well it was worth a shot

EagerDragon
Jan 10, 2007, 06:22 PM
iWiz
Its more than a phone its a Wiz at everything it does.

balamw
Jan 10, 2007, 06:23 PM
ah well it was worth a shot

eyeFone?

B

FaasNat
Jan 10, 2007, 06:23 PM
At least in the immediate sense, we won't have to worry about Cisco causing a stop ship on the thing as it's not expected to be released until June. That gives Apple 5.5 months to figure things out before the courts make 'em stop.

shelterpaw
Jan 10, 2007, 06:24 PM
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

eyeFone?

B
Still phonetically the same.

inkswamp
Jan 10, 2007, 06:25 PM
Apple must know what they're doing. If even casual observers knew about Cisco's trademark, then Apple definitely knew. So let's see. Here's my theory... somehow Cisco was being uncooperative and leaning toward saying no, so Apple went public, took ownership of the name in the minds of the general public and maybe force Cisco to reconsider. Who knows?

Apple: We'd like to use iPhone as the name for our new product.

Cisco: Sorry, we own it.

Apple: Can we work out a deal? Maybe we can pay you 20 million bucks to use it. That would cover your marketing and you could re-brand your phone. We *really* wanna use that name and we'd pay that much for it.

Cisco: Maybe, how about 30 million?

Apple: Um... okay. 30 million.

Cisco: No, let's make it 40 million.

Apple: No, 30 million sounds good.

Cisco: No, screw off. We've changed our minds now.

(Apple goes public with the iPhone name.)

Cisco: Damn, you've grabbed major headlines with that. We may own the iPhone trademark, but everyone on the planet now thinks it's yours. We're suing you.

Apple: Hey, I have an idea. Let's talk about us buying it from you again. How does $30 million sound? That would more than cover re-branding and could avoid a lot of messy legal entanglements.



EDIT: Avicdar, I seriously did not see your post before posting mine. Weird. Same idea, same sort of post. Oh well... great minds and all that. ;)

MrSmith
Jan 10, 2007, 06:26 PM
I hate to be crude, well not really, but that sounds like something you do in a bathroom. :p
Though some of us prefer to do it in the toilet. ;)

bilbo--baggins
Jan 10, 2007, 06:26 PM
Perhaps they could get on an launch the iPhone in Europe first, while they sort out this legal mess?

hehe ;)

shelterpaw
Jan 10, 2007, 06:27 PM
Though some of us prefer to do it in the toilet. ;)
I try, but my aim isn't as good as it used to be.

DTphonehome
Jan 10, 2007, 06:27 PM
Oy vey. How could Apple legal not see this coming? They really should have named it something else.

KeegoSupremo
Jan 10, 2007, 06:28 PM
I like Apple Phone better than iPhone anyways
not everyone know that i(everything) is a apple thing so I think Apple Phone would be better for apple
or they could just take out the phone part and add some storage and I would be just fine :D

Mal
Jan 10, 2007, 06:29 PM
I think Apple was definitely in the wrong in this case, and that if it were to make it to court (which it won't), then they would lose. However, they'll string it out for a while for the publicity, then drop the i and call it the Apple Phone (the symbol, but I'm on the stupid library computers with Windows at the moment). Heck, everyone's just going to be asking for "that Apple Phone" anyways, why not use the name? I think it's kinda playing dirty, but hey, Apple's not afraid to play that way sometimes.

jW

Sabenth
Jan 10, 2007, 06:30 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHHAHA


Like its gona matter they got there 1% mobile market without even selling one what ever they want to call it sorry its funny as **** to me its because of rumors its was given the name iPhone and what was the big point made the touch stuff is copyrighted but no mention of a real name for it so apple will name it @phone or iMobile or even better Weownu

Grimace
Jan 10, 2007, 06:32 PM
engadget calls it the JesusPhone! :p

SpudNYC
Jan 10, 2007, 06:34 PM
I think it's just crazy that Cisco, an inovator in their market, actually used iPhone as their product name. I could see trademarking the name to keep Apple from using it but ACTUALLY using the i<name> is soooo cheap knockoffy.

japanime
Jan 10, 2007, 06:36 PM
If not, then you Americans might get a "special" version that either Apple pays royalties on, or with a little "?" replacing the "i".

You might be correct.

In Japan, another company holds the trademark for "Airport" and markets a wireless router under that brand name, (I own one and it's actually a pretty decent little device). So, in Japan, Apple's Airport is called AirMac.

I could see Apple selling its phone as the iPhone in the countries where it holds that trademark, and as an ApplePhone in the States.

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 06:37 PM
I thought it was all to good to be true.:rolleyes:
Let the legal fun begin!

Cisco 1
Apple 0


Id say

APPLE: 2
CISCO: 1

Please do a search at the US Patten page. Guess what? Apple has a patten for a mobile phone called iPhone. Cisco has a patten for an iPhone that does not mention cell phones or mobile phones in the patten at all, only internet phone. Looks like Apple has the upper hand on this one if you ask me.

Sabenth
Jan 10, 2007, 06:38 PM
I think it's just crazy that Cisco, an inovator in their market, actually used iPhone as their product name. I could see trademarking the name to keep Apple from using it but ACTUALLY using the i<name> is soooo cheap knockoffy.

Why they beat apple to it simple as they saw a chance to get some mass intret and took it apple new the big fuss over this phone of theres and they fluffed it big time

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 06:38 PM
I didn't see it coming, since Cisco was in talking with apple, but apple is really not smart by using the name before the settle of the deal.

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 06:41 PM
Cisco Systems had the name, Apple wanted it. Started negotiations which would have been ages ago. Cisco went ahead and launched their VOIP phones named iPhones and a range of them all. Apple annoyed and kept negotiating. Used the name before really allowed to (cheeky devils). Getting sued. Cisco holds name. Asks for more money (cheeky devils) Apple over a barrell like the gimp out of pulp fiction. Pay the money or change the name. Unless cisco sells name legally Apple do not have a leg to stand on does not matter how much money apple has. Its all very predictable. I think the lawsuit is just cisco being difficult to get more money because they probably did not do research into how much it would cost to rebrand all there VOIP phones.

Sandfleaz
Jan 10, 2007, 06:41 PM
The whole iProduct naming scheme is getting a little old.

I wouldn't mind "PodPhone" or treat it like Apple (logo)TV

smueboy
Jan 10, 2007, 06:43 PM
I wouldn't be suprised if this was what Cisco wanted all along. And since Apple seems to expect to get what it wants when i comes to legal issues, this could become drawn-out.

Aeolius
Jan 10, 2007, 06:43 PM
Apple could always rename the iPhone as the Cisco :D

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

ulyssespdx
Jan 10, 2007, 06:44 PM
do you really think Apple, a multi-billion dollar company, didn't conduct a serious amount of forethought and planning and legal effort and preparation before launching a new, revolutionary product?

seriously? are you kidding? you actually think Apple is going "whoops"?

good grief.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 06:44 PM
Id say

APPLE: 2
CISCO: 1

Please do a search at the US Patten page. Guys what? Apple has a patten for a mobile phone called iPhone. Cisco has a patten for an iPhone that does not mention cell phones or mobile phones in the patten at all, only internet phone. Looks like Apple has the upper hand on this one if you ask me.

where is it? why i couldn't find it? how about a link?

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 06:45 PM
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'.


I think it's just crazy that Cisco, an inovator in their market, actually used iPhone as their product name. I could see trademarking the name to keep Apple from using it but ACTUALLY using the i<name> is soooo cheap knockoffy.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 06:46 PM
do you really think Apple, a multi-billion dollar company, didn't conduct a serious amount of forethought and planning and legal effort and preparation before launching a new, revolutionary product?

seriously? are you kidding? you actually think Apple is going "whoops"?

good grief.

so far, looks like it. Im not that confident that apple will never make mistakes.

smueboy
Jan 10, 2007, 06:47 PM
Apple could always rename the iPhone as the Cisco :D

LOL

blybug
Jan 10, 2007, 06:48 PM
This is probably what has happened:

SNIP<<cleverly argued conspiracy theory>>SNIP

Apple: Hi! You guys suck! Give us the iPhone name!
Cisco: Huh? I thought you guys wanted to negotate in good faith?
Apple: Did your mommy dress you this morning?
Cisco: Whats going on here? Why are you being like this?
Apple: Give us the iPhone name you unkempt malcontents!!
Cisco: See you in court.
Apple: :)
----------------------------

Totally. Hilarious.

I hope this is more or less what happened and they planned this all along and get more hype because of it. In the end please name the thing ApplePhone (with the Apple logo like AppleTV) or even better, iPod phone. Surely "iPhone" was Apple's codename for this just like "iTV"...why not change it before the launch but milk it for a little free "bad press" along the way?

I'm still buying one on Day #1 even if they name it iGetABrainTumorUsingThisSickThing

smueboy
Jan 10, 2007, 06:49 PM
Id say

APPLE: 2
CISCO: 1

Please do a search at the US Patten page. Guess what? Apple has a patten for a mobile phone called iPhone. Cisco has a patten for an iPhone that does not mention cell phones or mobile phones in the patten at all, only internet phone. Looks like Apple has the upper hand on this one if you ask me.

Whats a Patten??

edit: oh, patent, i see.

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 06:49 PM
where is it? why i couldn't find it? how about a link?

Sorry I can't post a link because it will time out. But do a search on the Trademark of the name and the patten. THe trademark comes right up. The patten has 33 to go through.

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 06:49 PM
So? Cisco still had the trademark FIRST!!!

Stop dreaming! Apple are stuffed unless they buy the iPhone trademark or come to some other agreement.


http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061218_465203.htm?chan=technology_technology+index+page_today's+top+stories
"Cisco has owned the trademark on the iPhone brand since 2000, when it acquired Infogear—which had registered the name in 1996"



Id say

APPLE: 2
CISCO: 1

Please do a search at the US Patten page. Guess what? Apple has a patten for a mobile phone called iPhone. Cisco has a patten for an iPhone that does not mention cell phones or mobile phones in the patten at all, only internet phone. Looks like Apple has the upper hand on this one if you ask me.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 06:50 PM
Totally. Hilarious.

I hope this is more or less what happened and they planned this all along and get more hype because of it. In the end please name the thing ApplePhone (with the Apple logo like AppleTV) or even better, iPod phone. Surely "iPhone" was Apple's codename for this just like "iTV"...why not change it before the launch but milk it for a little free "bad press" along the way?

I'm still buying one on Day #1 even if they name it iGetABrainTumorUsingThisSickThing

LOL, seriously, i think its time for apple to drop this "i" thing, its becoming more and more abused everywhere. not unique anymore.

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 06:50 PM
Whats a Patten??

edit: oh, patent, i see.

Yeah sorry Im not the best speller and Safari did not catch it...

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 06:51 PM
do you really think Apple, a multi-billion dollar company, didn't conduct a serious amount of forethought and planning and legal effort and preparation before launching a new, revolutionary product?

seriously? are you kidding? you actually think Apple is going "whoops"?

good grief.


There is no point the publicity is not positive anyway you look at it. It has put a cloud over the announcment of the product. I genuinely believe apple made a mistake this time.

balamw
Jan 10, 2007, 06:51 PM
Apple could always rename the iPhone as the Cisco :D

Given past experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_litigation_of_Apple_Computer#Libel_dispute_with_Carl_Sagan), they'd probably rename it BHRC: ButtHead Router Company.

B

carlgo
Jan 10, 2007, 06:53 PM
LOL

The Cisco Kid was a friend of mine. But, I drew the line at Lash LaRue.

I'll bet nobody here knows who he was. No fair Googling.

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 06:53 PM
So? Cisco still had the trademark FIRST!!!

Stop dreaming! Apple are stuffed unless they buy the iPhone trademark or come to some other agreement.


http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061218_465203.htm?chan=technology_technology+index+page_today's+top+stories
"Cisco has owned the trademark on the iPhone brand since 2000, when it acquired Infogear—which had registered the name in 1996"

Yes but if you do not protect your trademark you loose it. Thats why Kleenex makes others call their products "tissue". I would wager that a court would say Cisco did not do all it could to stop the general public from identifying their trademark with a general term for a name.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 06:54 PM
Sorry I can't post a link because it will time out. But do a search on the Trademark of the name and the patten. THe trademark comes right up. The patten has 33 to go through.

at least give me a link to the website?
i checked http://www.uspto.gov/ but didnt find what u said?

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 06:55 PM
Yes but if you do not protect your trademark you loose it. Thats why Kleenex makes others call their products "tissue". I would wager that a court would say Cisco did not do all it could to stop the general public from identifying their trademark with a general term for a name.

They ARE protecting it by suing Apple ASAP.

Apart from the patent entries ( apparently ), iPhone was associated to Apple by rumours mostly... rumours are vapour.

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 06:55 PM
at least give me a link to the website?
i checked http://www.uspto.gov/ but didnt find what u said?

Here:
http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm

then click on the search trademarks on the top of the red area (right side). Type iPhone in the search box

this might expire but here is a direct link http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=bgm1go.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=iPhone&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 06:56 PM
They ARE protecting it by suing Apple ASAP.

Apart from the patent entries ( apparently ), iPhone was associated to Apple by rumours mostly... rumours are vapour.

Its a little late for that. The general public already called Apples phone the iPhone. If they were serious about protecting it they would have told just about everyone to stop using it as a term for Apples phone years ago.

macintel4me
Jan 10, 2007, 06:57 PM
Funny how history repeats itself. Same thing happened way back to the original "Macintosh" in 1984.

EagerDragon
Jan 10, 2007, 06:57 PM
I think this is much ado about nothing.

It costs what? $60.00 to file a suit. They have the obligation to protect the property, it's a requirment of the law.

1) Apple jumped the gun before returning the signed contract and announced the "iPhone".

2) Cisco initiates protective action of the name

3) Apple returns signed contract

4) Cisco drops suit

5) 20 years from now if it ever comes up, or becomes cloudy who really owns the name, then Cisco can point to the filed suit as an attempt at protection of the name they owned.

I think this is the most likely scenario since Cisco can not sell products with that name overseas. They are both at an impass and can go for a very lenghty law suit or can quickly settle it out.

Settle is cheaper and both can sell their product in the mean time (one of them under a different name).

pilotError
Jan 10, 2007, 06:57 PM
I personally think its a crap shoot if it ever went to court.

Apple Corp. (or whatever the Beatles company is called) tried to use the same defense, but essentially the courts found that they are two non-competing industries.

The Cisco iPhone doesn't really compete with the Apple iPhone.

Sounds like a little marketing ploy by Cisco to get their name in the news, probably to squeeze a little more cash out of the deal.

I wouldn't be too upset over a name change, but I'm sure Steve and company would be pissed about missing the brand recognition.

jettredmont
Jan 10, 2007, 06:58 PM
to assume the iPhone name without getting Cisco's blessing are missing the point.

As long as this controversy goes on, Apple will be getting daily free publicity for the iPhone or whatever they are going to call it. Marketing people understand a fact that rational, logical people can simply not grasp: there's no such thing as bad publicity.


While I agree somewhat in this case (because the news isn't gutterally bad; it is bad if and only if you think about it, and that does fade), that's a wonderful example of Famous Last Words. To go completely obvious: I don't think Mark Foley would agree that no publicity is bad publicity.


Anyways, iAnything is a rip-off of iMac, so, in reality, Apple really owns all of those names and reserves the right to use them whenever it wants.


As someone pointed out at some point in the last month, you can't trademark a regular expression. "i.*" is not trademarkable. Examples in computers alone: "486", "IBM Compatible", etc.


Some camera company made a camera called the *ist. Anyone naming their product the *ster, or the *meister is just waiting to get screwed. Same thing with Cisco.

Funny you mention the "*ist". I see that as Exhibit A as for why "[apple symbol]TV" is a really crappy brand name. People tend to avoid products when they can not pronounce their names (a fact on which Apple has capitalized perhaps more than any other electronics company out there), and generally non-alphabetic symbols are non-pronouncable.

The *ist was widely regarded as far superior to where it ended up in the market, and the primary reason for its (relative) failure was that no one knew how to pronounce the name ("star-ist" being the most used pronunciation, but when people used that pronunciation they weren't confident in how they pronounced it, and others hearing the name couldn't look it up) and it is next to impossible to plug into a friendly search engine (Google actually made some mods to allow "*ist" as a search term, IIRC).

Now, Apple could mitigate this failure to some extent by mounting a huge TV campaign where the announcer says "Apple TV" when the (symbol)-TV brand is on the screen, and if we had a whole fleet of such-named products then the branding would feed off itself, but they're fighting an uphill battle there. I mean, take the "iName" convention: how often do you STILL, even after the success of the iMac and then even larger success of the iPod, see people type (or accept their word processor's correction to) "Iapp"? Seems like a really boneheaded decision.

All of which appears to be off topic, so let me bring it back around: sounds like the same boneheads who came up with (apple symbol)TV also decided to go ahead and use the name of a product which was just announced a few weeks ago instead of coming up with their own original (probably boneheaded) name.

IMHO, if they really want (apple symbol)TV to work they should name this (apple symbol)Phone, and the next 'n' devices should be likewise named. Then you've got a brand, and you've beaten how to pronounce this symbol into everyone's brain by the third or fourth product so it's no longer a detriment in the market.

digitalbiker
Jan 10, 2007, 06:58 PM
Apple needs to give it up and give Cisco the name. It's a crappy name anyway. All this i"Stuff" is getting old and cheezy.

I don't know what they should call it but surely Apple can come up with something better than iPhone. It's dull and too "CISCOish".

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jan 10, 2007, 06:59 PM
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/01/10/apple_iphone_and_trademarks_its_buying_ciscos.html

interesting. puts a completely different slant on it.

INTERSTING! Well, in my opinion, if Apple is granted the patent/trademark, then they have the right to use it. Cisco should be suing the patent office for being incompetent and unorganized.

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 07:00 PM
Its a little late for that. The general public already called Apples phone the iPhone. If they were serious about protecting it they would have told just about everyone to stop using it as a term for Apples phone years ago.


You can't stop people from stop calling rumours of an Apple phone 'iPhone' - how are they going to do that!!!!?

How many people knew Apple patents were named 'iPhone'? Very little I expect so Apple can't claim that.

Anyway, remember Rendevous? Apple lost that and Apple were using that name for a while before the other company sued.

EricNau
Jan 10, 2007, 07:01 PM
Further muddying the waters is Apple owning the iphone.org domain for years.
That won't have a big bearing on the case because the registration process is anything but formal. Anyone can register any domain name, ignoring any trademarks already in place. Just because you register a domain name, doesn't give you the right to use it for any other purpose. For example, just because (in theory) I can register "coca-cola.com", doesn't give me the right to name my product "coca-cola".

Besides, the courts don't usually approve of people or companies registering domain names for products unless they own the trademark.

TheBobcat
Jan 10, 2007, 07:02 PM
When I saw the @TV (Apple Logo=@) I almost assumed it would be the @Phone. I mean, it makes sense. From now on, "Mac" goes before the Macintosh stuff, @ goes before the non-mac but Apple stuff. The only i to remain would be for iPod simply because thats its identity and a change would be severely detrimental. But then Apple just HAD to call it iPhone and keep the i arround. Ugh. :rolleyes:

The Cisco iPhone is definitely a publicity stunt for Cisco. In fact, I wish Apple could sue all the products that use the i before the product since it is all a ripoff of the iPods success and I would say an attempt to confuse consumers.

The bottom line here is if Apple and the iPod never happened, Cisco's VoIP phone would almost certainly not be called iPhone. But in the twisted trademark system we enjoy here in the US, Apple will probably have to pay out the nose.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 07:02 PM
Here:
http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm

then click on the search trademarks on the top of the red area (right side). Type iPhone in the search box

this might expire but here is a direct link http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=bgm1go.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=iPhone&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

errr... i might not know how to read it, i saw 9 results, 4 are alive, 5 are dead, but none of them belongs to neither cicso nor apple, something wrong there?

edit, i saw one by Cisico, but no apple

DTphonehome
Jan 10, 2007, 07:02 PM
The Cisco iPhone doesn't really compete with the Apple iPhone.


Two products don't have to directly compete to violate a trademark. And it's pretty clear that a cell phone and an IP phone are both telephony devices. It's pretty similar.

tschull
Jan 10, 2007, 07:03 PM
I didn't take the time to click on every single link, but there are many companies listed as assignees here, including Microsoft. Note: these seem to pop up because "iPhone" is mentioned under "description of related art".

PAT. NO. Title
1 D531,613 Full-Text Telephone
2 7,106,726 Full-Text Internet switch box, system and method for internet telephony
3 7,046,994 Full-Text System and method for associating a contact with a call ID
4 7,035,620 Full-Text Playing of audio via voice calls initiated from visual navigation
5 6,975,712 Full-Text Common visual and functional architecture for presenting and controlling arbitrary telephone line features
6 6,836,765 Full-Text System and method for secure and address verifiable electronic commerce transactions
7 6,778,652 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing and facilitating a voice call connection from a client computer to a PSTN extension
8 6,757,363 Full-Text Method and apparatus for operating a telephone as an independent network client
9 6,687,339 Full-Text Controller for use with communications systems for converting a voice message to a text message
10 6,671,272 Full-Text Internet switch box, system and method for internet telephony
11 6,661,878 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing a voice call to a PSTN extension for a networked client computer
12 6,628,760 Full-Text Method and apparatus for selecting an internet/PSTN changeover server for a packet based phone call
13 6,542,498 Full-Text Signaling system and method to connect idle internet end stations with application in internet telephony
14 6,463,146 Full-Text Call waiting service in a telecommunications network
15 6,389,124 Full-Text Common visual and functional architecture for presenting and controlling arbitrary telephone line features
16 6,377,570 Full-Text Internet switch box, system and method for internet telephony
17 6,320,875 Full-Text Methods and apparatus for providing improved quality of packet transmission in applications such as internet telephony
18 6,310,941 Full-Text Method and apparatus for facilitating tiered collaboration
19 6,304,637 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing and facilitating a direct quality voice call to a telephone extension on behalf of a client computer
20 6,266,539 Full-Text Telephone docking station for personal digital assistant
21 6,233,249 Full-Text Methods and apparatus for providing improved quality of packet transmission in applications such as internet telephony
22 6,226,686 Full-Text Server-group messaging system for interactive applications
23 6,212,192 Full-Text Method and apparatus for synchronizing information browsing among multiple systems
24 6,199,096 Full-Text Method and apparatus for synchronizing information browsing among multiple systems
25 6,144,670 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing and facilitating a voice call connection from a client computer to a PSTN extension
26 6,075,796 Full-Text Methods and apparatus for providing improved quality of packet transmission in applications such as internet telephony
27 6,031,836 Full-Text Web-page interface to telephony features
28 6,026,087 Full-Text Method and apparatus for establishing a voice call to a PSTN extension for a networked client computer
29 5,987,102 Full-Text Method and apparatus for bridging a voice call including selective provision of information in non-audio to the caller
30 5,974,446 Full-Text Internet based distance learning system for communicating between server and clients wherein clients communicate with each other or with teacher using different communication techniques via common user interface
31 D411,534 Full-Text Internet telephone
32 5,889,774 Full-Text Method and apparatus for selecting an internet/PSTN changeover server for a packet based phone call
33 D398,298 Full-Text Computer display with an iPhone window

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 07:04 PM
You can't stop people from stop calling rumours of an Apple phone 'iPhone' - how are they going to do that!!!!?

How many people knew Apple patents were named 'iPhone'? Very little I expect so Apple can't claim that.

Anyway, remember Rendevous? Apple lost that and Apple were using that name for a while before the other company sued.

If you won a Trademark/patent and see it in the media being misused the burden to stop the misuse lies with the trademark holder.


I.E. Cisco sees Time Magazine or the New York Times refer to a speculated phone from Apple called the iPhone. Cisco must then contact Time (or whom ever) and inform them of the problem. Generally Time (or whom ever) will print a correction in the next issue. Thats how trademark law has been in the US for a long time.

hagjohn
Jan 10, 2007, 07:04 PM
This all just add's more press coverage to both products and in the end, both will win with a settlement.... If I was icynical about the whole thing.

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 07:05 PM
errr... i might not know how to read it, i saw 9 results, 4 are alive, 5 are dead, but none of them belongs to neither cicso nor apple, something wrong there?

edit, i saw one by Cisico, but no apple

#4 is Apples

and

#6 is Ciscos

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 07:05 PM
Maybe so, but Cisco owns the trademark, they have the right to use it. It doesn't change much. Cisco owns iPhone, Apple does not. Up until yesterday Apple 'iPhone' was all rumours. Cisco have the right to use iPhone anyway they wish.



The bottom line here is if Apple and the iPod never happened, Cisco's VoIP phone would almost certainly not be called iPhone. But in the twisted trademark system we enjoy here in the US, Apple will probably have to pay out the nose.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Jan 10, 2007, 07:06 PM
just rename it iMoble and get it over with.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 07:07 PM
#4 is Apples

and

#6 is Ciscos

lol, the page for #4 doesn't even contain the term of "apple".
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2816/trademarkelectronicsearkh6.th.png (http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trademarkelectronicsearkh6.png)

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 07:08 PM
The bottom line here is if Apple and the iPod never happened, Cisco's VoIP phone would almost certainly not be called iPhone. But in the twisted trademark system we enjoy here in the US, Apple will probably have to pay out the nose.

I think you are wrong, Infogear held the name since 1996 and when cisco bought them over obtained the name in 2000, I think (not sure correct me anyone if I am wrong) 1g ipod was launched in 2001. So dont think iPod has anything to do with the name iPhone. they should call it the eyephone sounds the same.

blybug
Jan 10, 2007, 07:10 PM
Funny you mention the "*ist". I see that as Exhibit A as for why "[apple symbol]TV" is a really crappy brand name. People tend to avoid products when they can not pronounce their names (a fact on which Apple has capitalized perhaps more than any other electronics company out there), and generally non-alphabetic symbols are non-pronouncable.

When I see *ist it reminds me too much of s*it. Why would I want to buy a s*it camera?

This is a really insightful post. I do like the physical appearance of (AppleLogo)TV and (AppleLogo)Phone but you're right...it's incumbent upon Apple to educate the public how to say it...but how do you Google it?? And how do non-Macs even generate the character?

?????? <<<---these were shift-option-K "Apples" when I typed them, but the forum converts them to question marks :(

primalman
Jan 10, 2007, 07:11 PM
errr... i might not know how to read it, i saw 9 results, 4 are alive, 5 are dead, but none of them belongs to neither cicso nor apple, something wrong there?

edit, i saw one by Cisico, but no apple

Word Mark IPHONE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 75076573
Filing Date March 20, 1996
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition December 29, 1998
Registration Number 2293011
Registration Date November 16, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) INFOGEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1775 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94061
(LAST LISTED OWNER) CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record KAREN MARIE KITTERMAN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE


Looks like Cisco is in the clear on this. Read the description. Knowing what I know about trademarks and such, I'd say either Apple will pay a LOT for the name, or simply re-launch in June with a new name.

Edit: sorry, did not see your edit.

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 07:12 PM
lol, the page for #4 doesn't even contain the term of "apple".
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2816/trademarkelectronicsearkh6.th.png (http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trademarkelectronicsearkh6.png)

So? See this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=233

Apple hides lots of things under other names (although this one says it s on record but has not yet been granted)

fiddle245
Jan 10, 2007, 07:13 PM
to assume the iPhone name without getting Cisco's blessing are missing the point.

As long as this controversy goes on, Apple will be getting daily free publicity for the iPhone or whatever they are going to call it. Marketing people understand a fact that rational, logical people can simply not grasp: there's no such thing as bad publicity.


No such thing as bad publicity? So are you hoping that Apple
creates exploding ipods like sony created exploding batteries?

TheBobcat
Jan 10, 2007, 07:14 PM
I think you are wrong, Infogear held the name since 1996 and when cisco bought them over obtained the name in 2000, I think (not sure correct me anyone if I am wrong) 1g ipod was launched in 2001. So dont think iPod has anything to do with the name iPhone. they should call it the eyephone sounds the same.

Looking on the patent office page provided earlier it made it seem the only live trademark owned for iPhone was obtained in 2005, but I only looked at it quickly. Either way, companies own hundreds of names they never use, if not the use at all. One MUST concede the timing to use iPhone is surly just a little too coincidental.

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 07:14 PM
At the end of the day its Apple fault for using the name without prior agreement from Cisco. Apple have no one to blame but themselves.

Read the article linked in this story.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 07:15 PM
So? See this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=233

Apple hides lots of things under other names (although this one says it s on record but has not yet been granted)

lol, dude, that article said apple got trademark for iPhone in UK, Singapore and Australia!

digitalbiker
Jan 10, 2007, 07:16 PM
The Cisco iPhone is definitely a publicity stunt for Cisco. In fact, I wish Apple could sue all the products that use the i before the product since it is all a ripoff of the iPods success and I would say an attempt to confuse consumers.

The bottom line here is if Apple and the iPod never happened, Cisco's VoIP phone would almost certainly not be called iPhone. But in the twisted trademark system we enjoy here in the US, Apple will probably have to pay out the nose.

This is ridiculous speculation. There have been "i" and "e" prefixes to everything internet and electronic for years. Long before the ipod. There were "i" products and services in my area as far back as 1983.

Stewdy
Jan 10, 2007, 07:17 PM
(if already mentioned then sorry), but I wonder if Apple wouldn't agree to prevent a future Skype-like Widget from functioning on the apple iphone. If that were developed (3rd party or otherwise) that would essentially make the apple iphone the same (in spirit) as the cisco iphone. Of course Cingular probably wouldn't be too happy about that either since you could circumvent their service. Granted, if you're paying your monthly service fee they shouldn't really mind if you take up your own home (or starbucks or whoever's) bandwith instead of theirs...

Zadillo
Jan 10, 2007, 07:17 PM
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more it does seem like it could ultimately be a good thing if Apple can't use the iPhone term. I think it is needlessly limiting - sort of like if they had called the original color photo-capable iPod Photo the iPhoto instead (I know that's the name of their photo app, but you get my drift). The nice thing about the iPod name is that it is so generic, and works well to describe an inherently multifunction device. If Apple had released their original mp3 player as something like the iMusic or something, it would have been a much more limiting name (frankly, I think Apple is facing this problem with iTunes, as it is a silly name for an app that is increasingly doing more than managing music). I think iPod Phone makes more sense. Also, just looking at the Washington Post coverage, in their headlines they actually called it the iPod Phone and iPod Smartphone, not the iPhone. The iPod name is so well known now that it is probably worse to not use than to try and use iPhone.

I imagine at this point that Apple will still try and come to some settlement with Cisco (I'm kind of curious how things went from them being in final negotiations yesterday to Cisco suing today though), and if nothing works, I think Apple will just fall back on iPod Phone or some other name.

Long term I have a hard time seeing how this really hurts Apple. It's not like this product needs to be called iPhone to sell well. I'm not even so sure how much people care about these product names anyway - heck, my current phone is a Treo 650 and I don't even know what Treo means (and I didn't even pronounce it properly for a long time - I kept calling it a Trio instead of a Trey-o).

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 07:19 PM
lol, dude, that article said apple got trademark for iPhone in UK, Singapore and Australia!

Did you read the whole article?

You miss this?

"….if you go to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (kind of like military intelligence but more evil) and so a search under Trade-Marks for iPhone, you will see three documents, an opposition, a search and an abandonment by Cisco….he US PTO also lists two of note, one by Ocean Telecom Services and the other by Teledex LLC. It is pretty certain that the Ocean application is from Apple, but the Teledex one beat it by a year."

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 07:19 PM
Remember you are not thinking about this on a global scale. They want to call the product the same thing in every country. Why was iTV changed to apple tv. Our channel three in the uk is called iTV. Its like Burger King in Australia is called Hungry Jacks. macdonalds is so succesfull because it is called that everywhere. Your trademark laws (by the sound of things) are diffirent to our trademark laws there would be no confusion over here (maybe because our lawers are not as good as yours) over who owns the name. Cisco owns the name and unless it is a vastly different product eg bread maker and top grade manure the name is legally owned and controlled by the filer for a pariod of up to two years and then another two years etc.

digitalbiker
Jan 10, 2007, 07:21 PM
At the end of the day its Apple fault for using the name without prior agreement from Cisco. Apple have no one to blame but themselves.

Read the article linked in this story.

I agree, Apple is being anal. Geeze the product won't be released until June. Just change the friggin name before you waste more money on ads, web design, promos, and law suits.

Why can Apple design such innovative products but not select a name that ends in a law suit?

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 07:22 PM
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.html

Cisco's Official Comments on the Apple iPhone Announcement
SAN JOSE Calif., January 9, 2007 - Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today.

jbernie
Jan 10, 2007, 07:23 PM
Apple has the iPod

They don't have the iCar, the iDesk, the iStylus or anything else (edit: iMac obviously excluded).

Yes it would be logical for them to go with iPhone, but then based on that the iPod would be the iMusic player.

Apple didn't have rights to the iPhone name, decided to use it anyway, and now they have a court case. Cisco having released an iPhone that is shockingly used as a phone and also having had the name trademarked in the US since the mid 90s (with help of an acquistion) are very much in the poisition of power.

As Apple has only had the name since...oo yesterday... and they do not have a product in the marketplace they are very much in a weak position.

Regardless of how much the name has been used in association to their rumour only product they did not get the name in the US and have never had the name. Association does not mean ownership in the eyes of the law. Apple will either change the name and keep things cheap, or will come to some agreement with Cisco on being able to use the name.

Doctor Q
Jan 10, 2007, 07:24 PM
What nerve Cisco has defending their property against use by our favorite company!

I refuse to buy their products at the supermarket until they make a deal with Apple.http://www.crisco.com/images/about/zero_press_release_pic.jpg

balamw
Jan 10, 2007, 07:25 PM
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.html

Cisco's Official Comments on the Apple iPhone Announcement
SAN JOSE Calif., January 9, 2007 - Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today.

But they also have this:

http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html?sid=BAC-RelatedNews

Cisco Sues Apple for Trademark Infringement
Suit Filed to Protect Cisco's iPhone® Trademark

SAN JOSE, Calif., January 10, 2007 - Cisco® today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc., seeking to prevent Apple from infringing upon and deliberately copying and using Cisco's registered iPhone trademark.

B

Some_Big_Spoon
Jan 10, 2007, 07:27 PM
No one "forced" Cisco into the courts; they chose to go there to monazite press that they didn't get. Let's be clear on that.

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 07:27 PM
ROTFL - over on Slashdot - i saw this comment -

"Negociations up until yesterday.
(Score:2)
by Angelwrath (125723) on Wednesday January 10, @07:55PM (#17549674)
There was a report that Apple and Cisco were in negotiations over the use of the name until yesterday, so chances are, this is Cisco going "OMG... cash cow ahead, release the legal hounds!".

pascalpp
Jan 10, 2007, 07:29 PM
The potential...is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand," [Cisco] concluded.

Yeah, some brand. "Hey, we took the word 'Phone' and put an 'i' in front of it! Aren't we clever? Give us money."

Hey Cisco, try doing something that isn't so boringly derivative of another company's well-established brand.

Teddy's
Jan 10, 2007, 07:29 PM
engadget calls it the JesusPhone! :p

That is not Kosher :D

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 07:32 PM
Yeah, some brand. "Hey, we took the word 'Phone' and put an 'i' in front of it! Aren't we clever? Give us money."

Hey Cisco, try doing something that isn't so boringly derivative of another company's well-established brand.

iCisco iHad iThe iPhone iTrademark iBefore iApple iStarted iTo iUse iThe iI iPrefix!

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 07:36 PM
iCisco iHad iThe iPhone iTrademark iBefore iApple iStarted iTo iUse iThe iI iPrefix!

Thanks I tried to say that ages ago but the i before each word definately put the iMessage iAcross. Holy Crap the i works Apple pay millions for it you will go bust without it.

FrankBlack
Jan 10, 2007, 07:37 PM
What nerve Cisco has defending their property against use by our favorite company!

I refuse to buy their products at the supermarket until they make a deal with Apple.http://www.crisco.com/images/about/zero_press_release_pic.jpg

:D :D :D Funny!

The articles I just read say that Apple and Cisco were negotiating right up until Monday night, with only a few more "things" to iron out. Given this, it certainly sounds like a publicity stunt on the part of Crisco.

I suspect this will continue for a bit, then a settlement will be announced. Then everyone will forget about it.

Strange beings, these corporate executives.

Lepton
Jan 10, 2007, 07:37 PM
iMobile

kentrox99
Jan 10, 2007, 07:38 PM
You know what sucks about this?
Who would actually benefit from the name?
Cisco's product will not do well against other competition and will probably be discontinued down the road.
Apple could use the name for consistency and simplicity. Any revisions would still be called the iPhone.
Any interest Cisco receives for its iPhone will be due to confusion.

Customer: "Oh, that's the Apple iPhone"
Sales Rep: "No, thats the Cisco iPhone"
Customer: "Nevermind"

Lepton
Jan 10, 2007, 07:39 PM
iMobile sounds pretty good to me, does anybody have that? Apple Mobile ok too. We call them cell phones in the US, but I think much of the world calls them mobiles.

I think Cisco sandbagged Apple on purpose for cash. I don't like that..

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 07:40 PM
Thanks I tried to say that ages ago but the i before each word definately put the iMessage iAcross. Holy Crap the i works Apple pay millions for it you will go bust without it.

Yes, some people seem to have the attitude of
'How dare Cisco use their own trade mark"

There are still companies use still use the prefix i<something>.

Cisco had the trademark and used it to name an internet phone ( VOIP ) iPhone.

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 07:40 PM
iMobile

it lacks punch

JoeG4
Jan 10, 2007, 07:42 PM
Trademark or not, I want to laugh - it's so satisfying to see this coming.

Apple has made iProducts since the 90s, and the iPod most notably is white, kinda rounded edges, simplistic styling, and rather expensive. Most apple iProducts are white, and have been.

What does cisco do? Linksys iPhones - white, rounded, basically they try to ride on the iTheme that exists hahahaha.

Meanwhile, Apple actually MAKES THE REAL THING (instead of trying to make a poser phone like Cisco/Linksys did). Cisco sees this and sues.

It's as if Ford decided to bring back the recently discontinued Taurus, but Saturn is already MAKING a taurus and sues Ford for trying to steal the name from them, lol.

MacUSER00110101
Jan 10, 2007, 07:43 PM
Rally together. We can fix the situation.
Email bombardment.
http://tools.cisco.com/newsroom/contactSearch/jsp/prSearch.jsp

They might just give up the name...

blybug
Jan 10, 2007, 07:43 PM
...based on that the iPod would be the iMusic player...

From the moment I played with the first-gen iPod and saw the "submenu" for Music on a purely music player it was clear that Apple never intended the device to be just for music, thus the (odd-sounding-at-the-time) name. It was obvious that Photos and Video would have their own "submenu" one day, but Music was the way to start.

If today's tech existed in 2001, the iPhone would BE the first-gen iPod...it's what the iPod has been slowly evolving into for 5 years, the futuristic vision Jobs probably had for it from the start...but a separate evolutionary stream led to a more advanced species and the good name was already taken. So now the iPhone is like homo sapiens and the iPod is a Neanderthal...they may be able to mate, but the weaker will die off or be absorbed by the other. :p

Just call it the "iPod phone" already!! It fits with the remainder of the product line naming conventions, capitalizes on the #1 handheld hip gadget in the world, and the "phone" part can be dropped when the feature sets become overlapped in a couple years, just like they did with "iPod photo". Does anyone think the iPod will not get the widescreen multi-touch treatment eventually? Then you've got 2 product lines with 2 different names that look almost identical.

Strange predicament they've boxed themselves into.

Found this old post by me in March 2004 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=754417#post754417) from just before the iPod photo came out...I was right about the iPod but (finally) wrong about the set-top box!

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 07:44 PM
Cisco has used the i for internet as it is purely Voip phones that are under the i prefix. apple uses the i for intelligent i think but i am not to sure. somebody help i please.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 07:47 PM
Did you read the whole article?

You miss this?

"….if you go to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (kind of like military intelligence but more evil) and so a search under Trade-Marks for iPhone, you will see three documents, an opposition, a search and an abandonment by Cisco….he US PTO also lists two of note, one by Ocean Telecom Services and the other by Teledex LLC. It is pretty certain that the Ocean application is from Apple, but the Teledex one beat it by a year."

well, i dont understand why u need to go to cadanian gov's website to find these info. and I feel this type of info probably won't help apple in court, i might be wrong tho, just wait and see whats gonna happen in court, or if apple will just pay to settle it.

edit, that article noted that the Teledex's and Ocean application's requests will probably be denied in US coz Cisco already got it.

in a word, all the trademarks u think apple got are not in US

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 07:48 PM
The Wii is white and round. So?

Apple have made iProducts since the *late* 1990s. Nice play on words there.


Your example isn't accurate - Apple never had the trademark 'iPhone'. Cisco did.

It would be like Ford making a Taurus and Saturn, two weeks later, releasing a car also called 'Taurus'. Ford sues Saturn.

In this scenario above, you'd expect Ford to. But oh, no, because this involves Apple, you expect Apple to be in the right... because its your favourite company.

Up until yesterday, Apple didn't have a product called iPhone - it was all rumours.



Trademark or not, I want to laugh - it's so satisfying to see this coming.

Apple has made iProducts since the 90s, and the iPod most notably is white, kinda rounded edges, simplistic styling, and rather expensive. Most apple iProducts are white, and have been.

What does cisco do? Linksys iPhones - white, rounded, basically they try to ride on the iTheme that exists hahahaha.

Meanwhile, Apple actually MAKES THE REAL THING (instead of trying to make a poser phone like Cisco/Linksys did). Cisco sees this and sues.

It's as if Ford decided to bring back the recently discontinued Taurus, but Saturn is already MAKING a taurus and sues Ford for trying to steal the name from them, lol.

jrhone
Jan 10, 2007, 07:48 PM
Cisco has a trademark for an internet VOIP solution...NOT a cellular phone! Apple has a trademark for a CELLULAR PHONE.

Ciscos Trademark definition:
"computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks"

Apples Trademark definition:
"handheld and mobile digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone calls, faxes, electronic mail, and other digital data; MP3 and other digital format audio players; handheld computers, personal digital assistants, electronic organizers, electronic notepads; magnetic data carriers; telephones, mobile phones, computer gaming machines, videophones, cameras; prerecorded computer programs for personal information management, database management software, electronic mail and messaging software, paging software, database synchronization software, computer programs for accessing, browsing and searching online databases, computer software and firmware, namely operating system programs, data synchronization programs, and application development tool programs for personal and handheld computers; electronic handheld units for the wireless receipt and/or transmission of data that enable the user to keep track of or manage personal information; software for the redirection of messages, Internet e-mail, and/or other data to one or more electronic handheld devices from a data store on or associated with a personal computer or a server; and software for the synchronization of data between a remote station or device and a fixed or remote station or device; computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks"

The trademark office thought they were 2 completely unrelated items...Apple could turn around and sue Cisco for releasing a cellular device with this name.

Doctor Q
Jan 10, 2007, 07:50 PM
Cisco has used the i for internet as it is purely Voip phones that are under the i prefix. apple uses the i for intelligent i think but i am not to sure. somebody help i please.I think "i" was originally intended to stand for Internet but Apple decided intentionally that it wasn't to "stand for" anything at all, and avoided defining it in their ads or product literature, so they could ride it wherever products could take them.

If they had called it something less generic (with more letters than "i") they could have protected it so that other companies couldn't have ridden their coat tails in the first place, and then they wouldn't have had to fight to use a new iSomething name now. But a longer prefix wouldn't have been as catchy.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 07:53 PM
Cisco has a trademark for an internet VOIP solution...NOT a cellular phone! Apple has a trademark for a CELLULAR PHONE.


link, plz

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 07:54 PM
I think "i" was originally intended to stand for Internet but Apple decided intentionally that it wasn't to "stand for" anything at all, and avoided defining it in their ads or product literature, so they could ride it wherever products could take them.

If they had called it something less generic (with more letters than "i") they could have protected it so that other companies couldn't have ridden their coat tails in the first place, and then they wouldn't have had to fight to use a new iSomething name now. But a longer prefix wouldn't have been as catchy.

Ok yes i would jump to that also but what product before the iPod did apple have an i prefix. I have only been into apple since iPod came out and then since last generation of macs so before this time I am a but hazy.

s10
Jan 10, 2007, 07:56 PM
More free publicity for Apple.. sponsored by Cisco.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 07:57 PM
More free publicity for Apple.. sponsored by Cisco.

i like the idea. haha

bretm
Jan 10, 2007, 07:59 PM
it lacks punch

I'm going to vote for iFi. Or PodPhone. Time to get rid of the i. Replace all the i's with Apple. ApplePod. AppleMac (or better yet, just Mac). Even better, just Pod.Or how about we increment them? iphone 2007. Then iphone 2007 sp 2, 3, etc. Or by letters... the jphone. The jpod. The jmac. Kphone, kpod, kmac. Kphoto. Ktunes. Yeah, I like it...

FreeState
Jan 10, 2007, 08:02 PM
well, i dont understand why u need to go to cadanian gov's website to find these info. and I feel this type of info probably won't help apple in court, i might be wrong tho, just wait and see whats gonna happen in court, or if apple will just pay to settle it.

edit, that article noted that the Teledex's and Ocean application's requests will probably be denied in US coz Cisco already got it.

in a word, all the trademarks u think apple got are not in US

The canadian trademark is the proof that the US application using the Ocean moniker is Apple:)

Either way it will be interesting to see what happens. I for one really don't care what they call it, I just want one! :o

dontmatter
Jan 10, 2007, 08:02 PM
What the hell was apple thinking? You take something somebody else already owns, has documentation for, and then go and make a big public announcment that you have it, and...? You don't just decide, f it, I'm going to break the law in front of the police, because I want to.

I seriously thought apple had an agreement worked out, or else they wouldn't have done this. Maybe they thought they did, and something went wrong?

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 08:03 PM
I'm going to vote for iFi. Or PodPhone. Time to get rid of the i. Replace all the i's with Apple. ApplePod. AppleMac (or better yet, just Mac). Even better, just Pod.Or how about we increment them? iphone 2007. Then iphone 2007 sp 2, 3, etc. Or by letters... the jphone. The jpod. The jmac. Kphone, kpod, kmac. Kphoto. Ktunes. Yeah, I like it...

i second "PodPhone"

Barabas
Jan 10, 2007, 08:04 PM
I'm going to vote for iFi. Or PodPhone. Time to get rid of the i. Replace all the i's with Apple. ApplePod. ... it...

How about the MacPod?

blybug
Jan 10, 2007, 08:05 PM
I think "i" was originally intended to stand for Internet but Apple decided intentionally that it wasn't to "stand for" anything at all, and avoided defining it in their ads or product literature, so they could ride it wherever products could take them.
The first "i" product was the iMac, the original bondi-blue, all-in-one iMac, introduced by Steve Jobs in a live streaming keynote in May '98, available in August. Among other oddities, the iMac had a translucent blue plastic case, did not have a floppy drive, and did away with legacy Apple ports such as ADB and SCSI for the up-and-coming USB. Mac discussion boards at that time (I think I used to hang out at maccentral.com back then) were full of nay-sayers predicting this was the final nail in Apple's coffin (mostly due to lack of floppy drive!! really!!)

And I can well recall, while watching this live stream, Steve specifically stating that the "i" stands for "internet". Eventually the "i" stopped meaning much of anything other than the latest Apple-branded product.

(still trying to track down a transcript of that show...why doesn't Apple put all the old Stevenotes on iTunes...how fun would that be!?)

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 08:05 PM
The canadian trademark is the proof that the US application using the Ocean moniker is Apple:)
Either way it will be interesting to see what happens. I for one really don't care what they call it, I just want one! :o

oh yeah, it should be easy to change a name, after all, the product isn't in market yet,

Supa_Fly
Jan 10, 2007, 08:05 PM
Trademark or not, I want to laugh - it's so satisfying to see this coming.

Apple has made iProducts since the 90s, and the iPod most notably is white, kinda rounded edges, simplistic styling, and rather expensive. Most apple iProducts are white, and have been.

What does cisco do? Linksys iPhones - white, rounded, basically they try to ride on the iTheme that exists hahahaha.

Meanwhile, Apple actually MAKES THE REAL THING (instead of trying to make a poser phone like Cisco/Linksys did). Cisco sees this and sues.

It's as if Ford decided to bring back the recently discontinued Taurus, but Saturn is already MAKING a taurus and sues Ford for trying to steal the name from them, lol.

Here is some support to that linksys claim

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/18/linksys_launches_iphone/

;)

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 08:06 PM
Yes you are right sorry. The i in iPod does stand for internet because it was a name apple patented for internet kiosks i being internet and pod being place human stands to use internet. They never used the name and put it into the music device now known as iPod. My argument was that the iPod came out way before anyway of getting music effectively from the internet and certainly not to use in the iPod anyway. Therefore thought it stood for intelliegent but I guess it is much more generic these days.

wildmannz
Jan 10, 2007, 08:08 PM
I'm sure Cisco tied down the name first - but can they REALLY sue yet?
I mean - the Apple product hasn't officially been launched, let alone sold.

Xavier
Jan 10, 2007, 08:10 PM
Just call it the (Apple Logo) iPhone


done there, finished


sosumi

numediaman
Jan 10, 2007, 08:10 PM
Everyone assumes that Apple was ready to go to market and was caught by surprise by Cisco.

I disagree.

It seems, of late, that Apple is the one not ready to go to market. Many months ago Apple announces the iTV, but says it is months away from being able to deliver -- then changes the name to AppleTV.

Now Jobs announces the iPhone, but states that it won't really hit the market until summer.

Sounds to me like Apple jumped the gun because they had nothing else to introduce in January.

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the iPhone. It looks great, and is certainly a better phone than the other high-end phones out there -- but does it really do anything new? Can't you send e-mail while on the phone now? (I do it all day long.) Can't you surf the net while on the phone, or listen to tunes? (I'll admit that multitouch is great, but it could have been introduced in the next gen of iPods just as easily.)

In the end, Cisco and Apple will settle and Apple will get their one percent of the phone market. Yippee.

AppleIntelRock
Jan 10, 2007, 08:12 PM
Hopefully Apple wont spend too much money on this name. Personally, I think "?Phone" would make an even better name.

cal6n
Jan 10, 2007, 08:14 PM
I'm actually quite surprised that Apple even considered iPhone, given that cisco have it sewn up. I thought iPDA (rhyming with "encyclopaedia") or iPad would be much better.

Oh, and BTW, it's "alt"+"shift"+"k" to get "". Best learn how to type it!

*edit* AArrgg! doesn't work. Use Lucida Grande!

*2nd edit* worked that time, how bizzarre

matthewroth
Jan 10, 2007, 08:17 PM
just to put this bluntly, this will be over in days!

the Iphone from cisco is patented as a VIOP phone doing blah blah blah... apple on the other hand have said it is a mobile phone doing everything, one words differance will make this a completly different product

also has any one else noticed that alot of mentions on the iphones own page has been changed to have an apple logo before the term Iphone (Peter S and s Jobs{PBUH} both looking woried and saying change it faster before they notice!)

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 08:17 PM
Sounds to me like Apple jumped the gun because they had nothing else to introduce in January.



No, because they couldn't keep it a secret for much longer - there's an article on thinksecret, appleinsider, or macrumors or somewhere.

Apple have to get FCC approval and for that all devices become public knowledge. If Apple didn't announce it, FCC would have made it public knowledge.

Zadillo
Jan 10, 2007, 08:18 PM
Everyone assumes that Apple was ready to go to market and was caught by surprise by Cisco.

I disagree.

It seems, of late, that Apple is the one not ready to go to market. Many months ago Apple announces the iTV, but says it is months away from being able to deliver -- then changes the name to AppleTV.

Now Jobs announces the iPhone, but states that it won't really hit the market until summer.

Sounds to me like Apple jumped the gun because they had nothing else to introduce in January.

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the iPhone. It looks great, and is certainly a better phone than the other high-end phones out there -- but does it really do anything new? Can't you send e-mail while on the phone now? (I do it all day long.) Can't you surf the net while on the phone, or listen to tunes? (I'll admit that multitouch is great, but it could have been introduced in the next gen of iPods just as easily.)

In the end, Cisco and Apple will settle and Apple will get their one percent of the phone market. Yippee.

I can send e-mail on my Treo, but the e-mail client on it stinks. The third party Palm app Chatteremail is somewhat better, but not by much. And I can browse the web on my Treo too, but only with the Blazer browser, which is terrible (or I can use the Opera Mini browser which forces my Treo to reset after a couple of minutes).

And I can listen to music on my Treo, but the music players for it are pretty mediocre, and none of them have anything close to the navigation interface that the iPhone does.

I think that Jobs' explanation for why they introduced the iPhone now makes sense. They have to get FCC approval, and if they waited, the iPhone stuff would leak out in FCC documents instead. It's a lot better for Apple to control the unveiling of the product and be the one showing what it is and what it does.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 08:20 PM
The canadian trademark is the proof that the US application using the Ocean moniker is Apple:)

Either way it will be interesting to see what happens. I for one really don't care what they call it, I just want one! :o

i changed my view, sounds like apple asked ciciso for the name first, when being refused, they didn't enter negotiation, but rather turn around used ocean xxx to try to get a trademark.

I know this is normal business tricks, but very annoying, personally, i don't like these tricks, and apple is very disappointing on this.

"Each time, Apple was told that Cisco was not interested in ceding the mark to Apple," Cisco's complaint reads.

Apple apparently was not willing to accept Cisco's decision, so it created a Wilmington, Del.-based front company called Ocean Telecom Services that applied to use the trademark in the U.S. on September 26, 2006, according to Cisco's complaint. That company, Cisco says in the filing, is "owned or otherwise controlled by Apple and is the alter ego of Apple." Around the same time on September 19, 2006, Apple also filed for the trademark for iPhone in Australia.

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."

http://news.com.com/Cisco+sues+Apple+over+use+of+iPhone+trademark/2100-1047_3-6149285.html?tag=nefd.lede

Digital Skunk
Jan 10, 2007, 08:21 PM
I say call it the iEverything

Everything you will ever need in one device. :D

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 08:23 PM
No, because they couldn't keep it a secret for much longer - there's an article on thinksecret, appleinsider, or macrumors or somewhere.

Apple have to get FCC approval and for that all devices become public knowledge. If Apple didn't announce it, FCC would have made it public knowledge.

Yes but it was already public knowledge that apple was releasing a phone device due to the patents. remeber when you patent something it also becomes public knowledge so yes fcc would have made it public to a certain extent eg Apple has a phone in testing at the moment but hey that
1: would have added more to the rumors and would have added more excitement regarding what it would be like/when it would be released etc and 2: we knew about it anyway but still would have been a surprise when macrumors posted "press and officials have been invited to a special event" think of the excitment knowing its coming but not knowing the content hey its like christmas

Mac'Mo
Jan 10, 2007, 08:24 PM
those freaking jerk faces!

scotthew1
Jan 10, 2007, 08:25 PM
Technically there has not been a breach of copyright. Sure Apple has said that they would call it "iPhone" but they haven't sold anything yet. I think cisco just sees how great it is and want some profits. Don't think they have much of a chance.

matthewroth
Jan 10, 2007, 08:26 PM
Quick note to all who say apple should drop the i Prefix. The i is in right now, i means'i gotta have it' and every one will want one if it has the i, its all about fasion, marketability and niche.

i can see every one having one with the i name, with out i think they will struggle to get the one% market share!

swingerofbirch
Jan 10, 2007, 08:26 PM
I hope Apple takes this as a good opportunity to rename the iPhone.

I mean they really ARE quite similar devices which COULD be confused and they do have the EXACT same name and Cisco had the trademark FIRST in the US, where the Apple phone will first be released.

I like the name iPod because it can mean anything. iPhone is a limiting name in my opinion. When you have a great brand like iPod, why change it? I mean people are smart enough to say yeah I've got the iPod with video, so they can say I've got an iPod with phone and Internet. It could be iPod ____something, like iPod nano.

MacNut
Jan 10, 2007, 08:27 PM
This was all a ploy to get money from Cingular in saying you get the rights to iPhone for 2 years. Sorry we don't own iPhone anymore its now open to all.:p

Digital Skunk
Jan 10, 2007, 08:28 PM
"Each time, Apple was told that Cisco was not interested in ceding the mark to Apple," Cisco's complaint reads.

Apple apparently was not willing to accept Cisco's decision, so it created a Wilmington, Del.-based front company called Ocean Telecom Services that applied to use the trademark in the U.S. on September 26, 2006, according to Cisco's complaint. That company, Cisco says in the filing, is "owned or otherwise controlled by Apple and is the alter ego of Apple." Around the same time on September 19, 2006, Apple also filed for the trademark for iPhone in Australia.

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."

Yeah WHATEVER.... but when MS monopolizes the computer world everyone bows down to suck Gates' toes. :mad: :mad:

Whatever... freakin aussie! Apple is a company just like any other company (especially Microsoft) I wouldn't expect anything better from any other company in the world... and if I were in Jobs' place I would do the same thing.:rolleyes: :D :cool: ;)

Look at all the underhanded things that MS is doing and NO one has anything to say.... If you buy a Dell in the next few months you will HAVE to by that crap Vista... Gates got rich off of that.:mad: :mad:

Blind FOOLS:mad: :mad:

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 08:28 PM
Quick note to all who say apple should drop the i Prefix. The i is in right now, i means'i gotta have it' and every one will want one if it has the i, its all about fasion, marketability and niche.

i can see every one having one with the i name, with out i think they will struggle to get the one% market share!

"i" was "in" 3 years ago, now a new "i" product aren't in anymore.

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 08:28 PM
We didn't know what those patents were exactly for. Apple makes a lot of patents it doesn't use - the rumours continue.

We didn't know 100% that an iPhone would ever come - it was all rumours.

When a product is sent to FCC - they will publish photos etc. We would then know what it was all about - a 100% cell phone, thus blowing away Apple's thunder.

Apple wanted to announce the iPhone and the element of surprise.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/how-the-iphone-avoided-being-leaked/
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/10/commentary/lewis_fortune_iphone.fortune/index.htm

Yes but it was already public knowledge that apple was releasing a phone device due to the patents. remeber when you patent something it also becomes public knowledge so yes fcc would have made it public to a certain extent eg Apple has a phone in testing at the moment but hey that
1: would have added more to the rumors and would have added more excitement regarding what it would be like/when it would be released etc and 2: we knew about it anyway but still would have been a surprise when macrumors posted "press and officials have been invited to a special event" think of the excitment knowing its coming but not knowing the content hey its like christmas

matthewroth
Jan 10, 2007, 08:29 PM
I hope Apple takes this as a good opportunity to rename the iPhone.

I mean they really ARE quite similar devices which COULD be confused and they do have the EXACT same name and Cisco had the trademark FIRST in the US, where the Apple phone will first be released.

I like the name iPod because it can mean anything. iPhone is a limiting name in my opinion. When you have a great brand like iPod, why change it? I mean people are smart enough to say yeah I've got the iPod with video, so they can say I've got an iPod with phone and Internet. It could be iPod ____something, like iPod nano.

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

notyourattorney
Jan 10, 2007, 08:29 PM
This is not my area of law, and I don't know all the facts, but I think it shakes out like this:

Cisco has a pretty good claim to the "iPhone" trademark, because they market a product under that name and registered it as a trademark. The selling of the product is actually more important than the registration, incidentally. Trademark registration is more of an administrative thing.

Apple also has some claim to the mark, because they have sold products under an "i" naming scheme for years, which are functionally and aesthetically similar to the Cisco product. In fact, Apple appears to have a pretty good claim for "dilution" against Cisco, which is basically a lawsuit saying that you have decreased the value of my trademark by doing something very similar.

Given their competing claims, and the importance of this name, they were apparently negotiating something. I'm not sure what exactly, since both seem pretty invested in the name.

However, Apple had a pretty hard deadline for announcing the product, MacWorld wasn't going to move. And I guess they couldn't work something out beforehand.

Once Apple announced, Cisco's lawyers undoubtedly told them that they should file a claim to defend "their" mark. This is because an important factor that courts look at to decide who owns a trademark is if someone is defending it against infringment. By moving quickly like this, Cisco strengthened it's claim to "iPhone." To have not done so, they would have weakened it.

Now the parties will almost certainly negotiate something, and Cisco will drop the lawsuit.

A strange business move to Cisco, frankly. Everyone knew an Apple iPhone was coming, and Apple has tremendous brand equity in white shiny tech toys called "i" something. And the two products are not very different, and will become much less so when Apple inevitably embraces VOIP (which they will pretty much do automatically when they let 3rd party apps run on the phone, I should think). By releasing the product first they might force Apple to pay them off (but they might also have found themselves on the wrong end of a diltuion claim), but Cisco is a HUGE and very profitable company, they hardly need a few million bucks from Apple, and will have wasted a lot of time and money on the whole thing. This is the sort of stunt a dinky startup would usually pull, not a market leader. And even if they somehow (not gonna happen) convince Apple to change, or agree to market them both, they are in for years of brand confusion in the marketplace, which serves nobody.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 08:29 PM
Yeah WHATEVER.... but when MS monopolizes the computer world everyone bows down to suck Gates' toes. :mad: :mad:

Whatever... freakin aussie! Apple is a company just like any other company (especially Microsoft) I wouldn't expect anything better from any other company in the world... and if I were in Jobs' place I would do the same thing.:rolleyes: :D :cool: ;)

Look at all the underhanded things that MS is doing and NO one has anything to say.... If you buy a Dell in the next few months you will HAVE to by that crap Vista... Gates got rich off of that.:mad: :mad:

Blind FOOLS:mad: :mad:

Jesus, you sure can bash M$ anywhere, everywhere, anytime.

Digital Skunk
Jan 10, 2007, 08:30 PM
This was all a ploy to get money from Cingular in saying you get the rights to iPhone for 2 years. Sorry we don't own iPhone anymore its now open to all.:p

:D :D :D :D :D

That would be SO wonderful if it were to happen....

"Dear tech God.... Please let Jobs find a way to remove this crap 2 year contract thing with Cingular by June so I can just get the iPhone with my current service, or no service at all:o :o . Amen..."

phungy
Jan 10, 2007, 08:31 PM
I'm surprised this thread has gone to page 9 in only 3 hours.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 08:31 PM
ARG, they are not the same product, only a fool would confuse them, look at the patents, one is VOIP landline one is mobile!!!!!

firefox is a browser,
firebird is a database,
still mozilla had to change their name from firebird to firefox. its a trademark.

Digital Skunk
Jan 10, 2007, 08:32 PM
Jesus, you sure can bash M$ anywhere, everywhere, anytime.

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!

macintel4me
Jan 10, 2007, 08:33 PM
Apple has no legal leg to stand on. Cisco has all the money to pay lawyers to go after Apple. In other words, this should be a first round knockout for Cisco over Apple. However, I place my bet that Apple gets the "iPhone" moniker without giving up too much. Why?? Because Steve Jobs simply wills things to happen they way he wants it. Its happened before and it will happen again.

Gurutech
Jan 10, 2007, 08:33 PM
Yeah WHATEVER.... but when MS monopolizes the computer world everyone bows down to suck Gates' toes. :mad: :mad:

Whatever... freakin aussie! Apple is a company just like any other company (especially Microsoft) I wouldn't expect anything better from any other company in the world... and if I were in Jobs' place I would do the same thing.:rolleyes: :D :cool: ;)

Look at all the underhanded things that MS is doing and NO one has anything to say.... If you buy a Dell in the next few months you will HAVE to by that crap Vista... Gates got rich off of that.:mad: :mad:

Blind FOOLS:mad: :mad:


even M$ doesn't do things like this.
Apple is trying to steal the trademark.
We are Apple fans. I understand urge to defend Apple Inc. However, Cisco is right on this one.
Would you feel ok if M$ decide to use iMac or iPod trademark without negotiation (well such negotiation is impossible but oh well) and announce iMac or iPod as their own product?
This act is definitely illegal.
I consider it worse than M$ including IE in Windows as bundle.

matthewroth
Jan 10, 2007, 08:34 PM
firefox is a browser,
firebird is a database,
still mozilla have to change their name from firebird to firefox. its a trademark.

apple rec. is the name of a recording company in the good old uk, apple renamed themselfs apple inc. this would make them in HUGE breech of the court decision a few months ago unless the names could be considered differently

bigraz
Jan 10, 2007, 08:39 PM
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.:)

The Scotsman
Jan 10, 2007, 08:46 PM
Stella previous point taken read your links and am corrected Thanks.

I agree with iPhone being overused now and it is not just a phone icommunicate or imedia or MacCommunicator oh I like that one

Zadillo
Jan 10, 2007, 08:49 PM
i changed my view, sounds like apple asked ciciso for the name first, when being refused, they didn't enter negotiation, but rather turn around used ocean xxx to try to get a trademark.

I know this is normal business tricks, but very annoying, personally, i don't like these tricks, and apple is very disappointing on this.



http://news.com.com/Cisco+sues+Apple+over+use+of+iPhone+trademark/2100-1047_3-6149285.html?tag=nefd.lede

I don't get this though, why did Cisco imply on the 9th then that negotiations were almost done, if they are now saying Apple never negotiated? Something doesn't add up.

Zadillo
Jan 10, 2007, 08:51 PM
even M$ doesn't do things like this.
Apple is trying to steal the trademark.
We are Apple fans. I understand urge to defend Apple Inc. However, Cisco is right on this one.
Would you feel ok if M$ decide to use iMac or iPod trademark without negotiation (well such negotiation is impossible but oh well) and announce iMac or iPod as their own product?
This act is definitely illegal.
I consider it worse than M$ including IE in Windows as bundle.

First, we haven't heard all the details of it. Cisco had implied yesterday that they were in negotiations with Apple, so it is curious at least that things have changed.

And seriously, worse than MS's bundling of IE in order to push out Netscape? That is seriously exaggerating things.

StuPidQPid
Jan 10, 2007, 08:52 PM
Duh!
Shouldn't it be the iTelephone anyway...

Also iMobile sounds like something you hang above a baby's crib...

I know in Germany, the call a cell phone/mobile a "handy" - so how about

iHandy?

or

iCell?

or...
iDontCare....

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 08:54 PM
I don't get this though, why did Cisco imply on the 9th then that negotiations were almost done, if they are now saying Apple never negotiated? Something doesn't add up.

sounds like they later both tried, remember apple tried to get trademark with a front company back in Spet. 06, and they were talking this Monday.

Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel at Cisco said in an interview that the companies were close to finalizing a deal Monday night that would have allowed both Cisco and Apple to use the iPhone name. One aspect of the agreement called for some sort of technical interoperability between Cisco's Linksys Internet telephony products and Apple's cell phone. Chandler said the hope was that by making the products interoperable, it would help alleviate confusion among customers, who would likely be target consumers for both products.

The companies left the negotiating table at 8 p.m. on Monday evening with only a few points left to negotiate, Chandler said. Then on Tuesday, Apple CEO Steve Jobs took the stage at the Macworld Expo and, amid much fanfare, unveiled the new "iPhone."

XnavxeMiyyep
Jan 10, 2007, 09:00 PM
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070110/cisco_iphone.html?.v=1

"We think this is silly," said Apple spokesman Steve Dowling of the tiff over trademarks.

Most hilarious response ever.

However, Apple needs to keep the i in the name of the product. Calling it the iPod Phone if Apple loses the case would work.

Zadillo
Jan 10, 2007, 09:02 PM
sounds like they later both tried, remember apple tried to get trademark with a front company back in Spet. 06, and they were talking this Monday.

Interesting.

I still think we must not be getting the whole story.

I don't see what changed from Monday to Tuesday. Is it just that Apple went ahead and announced it anyway? Why did that kill the deal?

If Apple was going to announce it either way on Tuesday (it's not like Cisco didn't know Macworld was that day, and I have to guess Apple might have been clear that they planned to announce it at Macworld), it doesn't seem like it should have killed whatever final negotiations they were in.

Just makes me wonder what exactly broke down that we can go from Apple and Cisco hammering out the details on Monday to Cisco suing them on Wednesday.

BornAgainMac
Jan 10, 2007, 09:08 PM
I figured it out. This has to be a media stunt performed by Apple to get their phone in the news. They will change the name to the real name of Mac Mobile or something.

quigleybc
Jan 10, 2007, 09:09 PM
just name it

goddamnIwantonesofrigginbad

or

macphone

and be done with it....

iPhone is kind of cheesy, and the whole " i " thing is played out at this point....

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 09:14 PM
Just makes me wonder what exactly broke down that we can go from Apple and Cisco hammering out the details on Monday to Cisco suing them on Wednesday.

lol, another way to say it is

what exactly broke down that we can go from Apple and Cisco hammering out the details on Monday to Apple go ahead announcing the product without final agreement on Tuesday.

but whatever happened, apple wasn't smart. now they will have to pay more if they wanna use the name.

Rocketman
Jan 10, 2007, 09:14 PM
I think Cisco sandbagged Apple on purpose for cash. I don't like that..

Correct.

Rocketman

Zadillo
Jan 10, 2007, 09:16 PM
I figured it out. This has to be a media stunt performed by Apple to get their phone in the news. They will change the name to the real name of Mac Mobile or something.

I get the impression you're being sarcastic, but I have seen other people mention this in all seriousness. It's like they think that Apple needs to orchestrate this kind of stunt to get press coverage for something that would get it no matter what they called it.

Zadillo
Jan 10, 2007, 09:17 PM
lol, another way to say it is



but whatever happened, apple wasn't smart. now they will have to pay more if they wanna use the name.

Possibly.

Whatever additional Apple has to pay to use the name will probably be peanuts in the grand scheme of things. And if it is more than they are willing, they can easily fall back on iPod phone or something else, which a lot of people seem to actually think is a more appropriate name than iPhone anyway.

Rocketman
Jan 10, 2007, 09:23 PM
Everyone assumes that Apple was ready to go to market and was caught by surprise by Cisco.

I disagree.

It seems, of late, that Apple is the one not ready to go to market. Many months ago Apple announces the iTV, but says it is months away from being able to deliver -- then changes the name to AppleTV.

Now Jobs announces the iPhone, but states that it won't really hit the market until summer.

Sounds to me like Apple jumped the gun because they had nothing else to introduce in January.

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the iPhone. It looks great, and is certainly a better phone than the other high-end phones out there -- but does it really do anything new? Can't you send e-mail while on the phone now? (I do it all day long.) Can't you surf the net while on the phone, or listen to tunes? (I'll admit that multitouch is great, but it could have been introduced in the next gen of iPods just as easily.)

In the end, Cisco and Apple will settle and Apple will get their one percent of the phone market. Yippee.

Apple was concerned the iTV violated a British trademark.

It was released as APPLE TV. Britain has expensive and extended legal BS.

Apple was concerned about the minimal and slight possibility its filed trademark in the category of its product might conflict with a trademark in a different category with Cisco, who, let's face it, makes the internet itself work, and filed this treademark in the USA after Apple filed its first international iPhone trademark to preempt Appple and set up this later DRAMA.

Fine.

Cisco needs the money!

We get it.

Apple might rename it APPLE Phone to bypass the drama or might stick with actual filed, approved rights to its trademark, as filed, just to make a legal point.

Apple might be justified to do so, and Cisco might be an *******, but as I see it Cisco needs to take the last APPLE offer as good.

Rocketman

pilotzen
Jan 10, 2007, 09:26 PM
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

sorry if its been posted prior :)

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 09:32 PM
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

sorry if its been posted prior :)
At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights?

now look back when Jobs said in the keynote they "taking care of patent", lol, Apple.

Whistleway
Jan 10, 2007, 09:33 PM
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

sorry if its been posted prior :)

nice. This says it all:

So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of “we’re too busy.” Despite being very close to an agreement, we had substantive communications from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.

Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.

Steve wont share the iPhone technology with you just because you own the trademark.

Lets just call it iPod Mobile :) or something like iPod X :)

Stella
Jan 10, 2007, 09:35 PM
And Eye TV, as well as ITV

Why on Earth should Cisco take Apple's last offer?!!! Apple used Cisco's trademark without agreement! Apple are in the wrong!

Cisco had the iPhone trademark first, before Apple ever did!! I don't know where you get your information from. [EDIT: I think your being sarcastic! :-) ]

From the above link:
"Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear’s registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple’s eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year."


Apple was concerned the iTV violated a British trademark.

It was released as APPLE TV. Britain has expensive and extended legal BS.

Apple was concerned about the minimal and slight possibility its filed trademark in the category of its product might conflict with a trademark in a different category with Cisco, who, let's face it, makes the internet itself work, and filed this treademark in the USA after Apple filed its first international iPhone trademark to preempt Appple and set up this later DRAMA.

Fine.

Cisco needs the money!

We get it.

Apple might rename it APPLE Phone to bypass the drama or might stick with actual filed, approved rights to its trademark, as filed, just to make a legal point.

Apple might be justified to do so, and Cisco might be an *******, but as I see it Cisco needs to take the last APPLE offer as good.

Rocketman

Gurutech
Jan 10, 2007, 09:37 PM
First, we haven't heard all the details of it. Cisco had implied yesterday that they were in negotiations with Apple, so it is curious at least that things have changed.

And seriously, worse than MS's bundling of IE in order to push out Netscape? That is seriously exaggerating things.

Ok. I admit that I exaggerated things way too much without enough details.
However, the poster I mentioned gave me this impression: "if all the companies including M$ do this, why not Apple"
So I got bit pissed off.
Sorry for my comment.

SpaceJello
Jan 10, 2007, 09:38 PM
If Apple didn't launch the product before reaching the deal, Cisco wouldn't have done what they did. I doubt they knew what the phone was going to be like. When they saw it, they knew a) that by suing, they will get some press for THEIR iPhone, b) that if they didn't have to sue, they would get a share into the freaking futuristic technology the iPhone has so that they can reap into the rewards while Moto, Nokia, SE etc have to scramble to catch up. And lastly c) where they KNEW the Apple iPhone is going to sell, they will grab whatever money they can get from Apple.

This is rather low of Cisco, but then Apple should know better.

flir67
Jan 10, 2007, 09:38 PM
I think apple has the iphone trademarked in china. also I think apple has secretly setup a second hq in china hence the name change. so if something illegal happen in the us (like backing dating stocks) all they have to do is claim china is now there home, and no one has a case against them in the us.
as they are in china.

I know this sounds stupid but I think it happens alot more then most people think.

cisco doesn't have clue I think......

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 09:40 PM
If Apple didn't launch the product before reaching the deal, Cisco wouldn't have done what they did. I doubt they knew what the phone was going to be like. When they saw it, they knew a) that by suing, they will get some press for THEIR iPhone, b) that if they didn't have to sue, they would get a share into the freaking futuristic technology the iPhone has so that they can reap into the rewards while Moto, Nokia, SE etc have to scramble to catch up. This is rather low of Cisco, but then Apple should know better.

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

Zadillo
Jan 10, 2007, 09:41 PM
If Apple didn't launch the product before reaching the deal, Cisco wouldn't have done what they did. I doubt they knew what the phone was going to be like. When they saw it, they knew a) that by suing, they will get some press for THEIR iPhone, b) that if they didn't have to sue, they would get a share into the freaking futuristic technology the iPhone has so that they can reap into the rewards while Moto, Nokia, SE etc have to scramble to catch up. And lastly c) where they KNEW the Apple iPhone is going to sell, they will grab whatever money they can get from Apple.

This is rather low of Cisco, but then Apple should know better.

Well, as noted in the Cisco blog post above, Cisco had to respond this way because if they didn't defend their trademark, they could lose it entirely.

This is just a necessary action in Cisco's part; I am pretty sure that Apple and Cisco's lawyers are hammering all these details out and something will be worked out.

I think the sticking point for Apple is probably Cisco's insistence on glomming on to Apple's iPhone; Cisco has a lot more to gain by getting to tie themselves into this product than Apple does by getting to tie into whatever Cisco has.

Still, I think we'll find out the results of all this soon enough.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 09:41 PM
I think apple has the iphone trademarked in china. also I think apple has secretly setup a second hq in china hence the name change. so if something illegal happen in the us (like backing dating stocks) all they have to do is claim china is now there home, and no one has a case against them in the us.
as they are in china.

I know this sounds stupid but I think it happens alot more then most people think.

cisco doesn't have clue I think......

lol,
1. even if Apple IS in china, when entering US market, they still don't have the trademark in US
2. Apple already has trademark of iphone in UK, Singapore, Australia.

Hummer
Jan 10, 2007, 09:43 PM
Not too late for MacTel... is it?

I just realized in pictures, iPhone is no where to be seen engraved on it.

xlii
Jan 10, 2007, 09:44 PM
Change the name to @phone or :) phone where :) is apple's bitten apple symbol.

clevin
Jan 10, 2007, 09:45 PM
Not too late for MacTel... is it?

no, but mactel sounds like mac+intel, u heard wintel before?