Cisco and Apple "iPhone" Negotiations Extended

[MacRumors]

Cisco issued a brief statement yesterday indicating that Apple and Cisco's negotiations over the iPhone trademark are ongoing and that an extension has been provided until February 21st 2007 before responding to the lawsuit.

Cisco appears to be capitalizing on the ongoing press coverage over the "iPhone" trademark and in February had taken out a full page ad in the New York Times promoting its own iPhone.

Cisco is hard at work increasing their brand recognition according to a Timesonline.co.uk article:

"People know about Cisco, perhaps because of the stock, but most people do not know what Cisco does," [CEO's chief development officer] said. The group is intent on changing that.

[xUKHCx]

I hope this gets resolved either way by this date as it serves no one to drag it on for so long.

[SciTeach]

Just settle it with an arm-wrestling match

[Cepe Indicum]

Rock, paper, scissors...?

[rubberduck007]

Cisco who?

[Rocketman]

The fact the noise is seen as benefiting Cisco, whch I do believe it does, means

1. Improved name recognition.
2. Oh they make phones too?
3. They have a trademark Apple wants? Apple is usually strong.

A couple of points. This goes to show once again any news, good or bad, is good news if your whole goal is to shake-up your stodgy image (routers for 90% of the internet or something).

Secondly. The trademark ussue is now in Apple's favor. It always was really, it just has to be litigated if Cisco does not simply conform to legal reality.

Thirdly, despite the fact Cisco got "some" trademark, it was for a different type of device than the Apple product, was not used as required by law and was lost, and Apple can simply embarrass Cisco on command to a lawyer.

So one wonders if this "courting of Cisco" is somehow related to Apple looking to buy them out?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837290?q=csco

Rocketman

[boss1]

In the end nothing good will come of this story, not for the consumer, not for Apple, not for Cisco, not for Cingular. And it's getting old.

Sad part is that it's not even remotely close to being discreet. Any person with more than 2 brain cells can clearly see this is patent sitting, a publicly ugly attempt at extortion of sorts, and the basis for trying to create 'interoperability' is greed at its worst. Not the ideal basis for creating product or feature or service and I hope the consumer doesn't have to see the outcome of it come purchase time.

[iomar]

I hope their stock goes up enough for me to sell my stock and get my money back. Than I can buy apple stock.

[mhagerman]

Cisco? I thought they sold food shortening.

Oh, wait...

[CJD2112]

I'll say it again lol, iMOBILE. iPhone is a cheesy moniker, iMobile would cover all the bases of what Apple's iPhone product can/will do AND it would stick it to Cisco for apparently attempting to cash in on the iPhone moniker. How can I email Jobs about this? lol

[Gasu E.]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

So one wonders if this "courting of Cisco" is somehow related to Apple looking to buy them out?

Given that Cisco's market cap is more than twice Apple's, why would you think that?

[twoodcc]

i hope they just get it resolved already. hopefully by this date they will

[OhEsTen]

Originally Posted by CJD2112

I'll say it again lol, iMOBILE. iPhone is a cheesy moniker, iMobile would cover all the bases of what Apple's iPhone product can/will do AND it would stick it to Cisco for apparently attempting to cash in on the iPhone moniker. How can I email Jobs about this? lol

I don't know... iMobile sounds like something that an iBatman would drive.

[Kwill]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

So one wonders if this "courting of Cisco" is somehow related to Apple looking to buy them out?

Cisco is so much larger than Apple, that the former couldn't be purchased by the latter even with favorably dated stock.

[Peace]

The FCC wouldn't allow a computer company to buy the company that runs 90% of the internet's routers anyway.

I predict June 15th we see the Apple Phone.

[Kabeyun]

Does Cisco really think that pumping up a product after necessary deadlines have passed will really matter?

Or do they think that there will be a sudden groundswell of public hunger for their last-minute-sticker-on-the-box "iPhone"?

Or do they think that they'll make people forget that the "i-" whatever monicker was started by Apple and will always be associated with Apple products (who's copying who)?

Or do they hope to singlehandedly reverse the sway of public opinion towards everything Apple?

Any way you slice it, that NY Times ad is a joke.

[SciTeach]

Originally Posted by Cepe Indicum

Rock, paper, scissors...?

Just as long as Cisco throws paper and throws a rock!

[donlphi]

Apple should just call it "THE PHONE" Take i out of the equation. It would simplify things for people like me and my grandmother. All of this i-everything. TOO CONFUSING.

DROP DEAD CISCO - your iPhone looks like an old cordless phone I had back in my college dorm room in the late 90's. Apple should seriously just change the name now that the iPhone name has been tarnished. I would stay as far away from that cisco phone as possible.

[lamadude]

Originally Posted by SciTeach

Just as long as Cisco throws paper and throws a rock!

You want cisco to win?

[iMikeT]

Why does Cisco even bother?

[SciTeach]

Originally Posted by lamadude

You want cisco to win?

Of course not!! I was refering to the SuperBowl Bud Light commercial.

Go to:

http://www.ifilm.com/superbowl

and look at the Rock, Paper, Scissor commercial.

[DMann]

Originally Posted by OhEsTen

I don't know... iMobile sounds like something that an iBatman would drive.

Remember that one? iPhone is a derivative of iPod after all...
How could Apple NOT have ®Trademarked it? Anyway, things
will be all settled once the $$ hits the table.....

[iEdd]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

Why does Cisco even bother?

Boredom